Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
080497 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AUGUST 4, 1997- 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: ROLL CALL: Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall presiding Mayor Pro Tem Roberts Ford, Linderoans, Roberts, Stone, Birdsall Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 97-13 Resolution: No. 97-85 PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. R:\Agenda\080497 1 PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person may submit written comments to the City Council 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 City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Appeal) RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Make a determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified and findings that a subsequent EIR is not required; 1.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN -APPEAL), UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - MALL AND POWER CENTER SITE PLAN, MALL AND POWER CENTER ELEVATIONS, MALL AND POWER CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN, MALL AND POWER CENTER COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARDS; ROBINSONS-MAY SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN, ROBINSONS- MAY ELEVATIONS AND ROBINSONS-MAY COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD, SEARS SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN, SEARS ELEVATIONS AND SEARS COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD) BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: August 12, 1997, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:\Agenda\080497 2 ITEM NO. I APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN(~~. CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Community Development Directo?'~'~ August 4, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Appeal) Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: MAKE a determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified and findings that a subsequent EIR is not required; and 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - APPEAL), UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSlON'S DECISION APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - MALL AND POWER CENTER SITE PLAN, MALL AND POWER CENTER ELEVATIONS, MALL AND POWER CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN, MALL AND POWER CENTER COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARDS; ROBINS0NS- MAY SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN, ROBINSONS-MAY ELEVATIONS AND ROBINSONS-MAY COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD, SEARS SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN, SEARS ELEVATIONS AND SEARS COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD) BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK BACKGROUND This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission at their June 2, 1997 meeting. At that meeting, the Commission expressed concerns regarding the following components of the project: power center elevations, landscape plan, the corner treatment at Winchester and Ynez Roads and the Sears and Sears Auto Center Elevations. Three people spoke at the June 2, 1997. Two of the speakers, both of whom were employed by existing cinemas in the area, voiced concerns regarding the additional cinemas proposed with the project and how it may R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 idb 1 impact their existing businesses. The appellant, Mr. Pratt, also spoke at this meeting, raising issues which are contained in the appeal application. The project was continued to the June 16, 1997 Planning Commission hearing and the applicant was directed to address the concerns of the Commission discussed above. The applicant was unable to provide revised exhibits prior to the June 16, 1997 Planning Commission hearing and requested the project be continued to the July 7, 1997 Planning Commission hearing. The Commission did not meet on June 16, 1997; therefore, the project was re-noticed for the July 7, 1997 Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Pratt was the only speaker at this meeting, and again voiced many of the same concerns contained in the appeal application. After reviewing the revised power center elevations, landscape plan, the corner treatment at Winchester and Ynez Roads and the Sears and Sears Auto Center Elevations, the project was approved by a unanimous vote by the Planning Commission at the July 7, 1997 hearing. ANALYSIS The appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Planning Application No. PA97- 0118 (Development Plan) was received on Monday, July 21, 1997. The appellant requests a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report be prepared for the project. The appellant alleges there was a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Sections 21166 (a-c) and CEQA Guideline Sections 15162 and 15163. These Sections discuss when it is necessary to prepare a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report under CEQA. The appeal application also contains statements the appellant feels supports the need for the additional environmental review. Most of these statements center on the analysis of the traffic impacts and the methodology used in the analysis. These will be discussed below. Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report An Initial Environmental Study (IES) was prepared for Planning Application No. PA97-0118, utilizing the previously prepared environmental information as a baseline. Pursuant to the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, a Traffic Analysis was prepared for Planning Application No. PA97-0118). All information reviewed indicated that the potential impacts of this project were included in and are consistent with the environmental impacts identified in the 1993 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the 1994 EIR Addendum for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan was certified in July, 1993. An Addendum to the EIR was adopted in October, 1994. The 1993 EIR indicated that even after implementing the proposed mitigations, several significant impacts will remain. The remaining significant impacts are: Noise, Climate and Air Quality, and Agriculture. Several other cumulatively significant impacts will occur if the other proposed Specific Plans for the region, Specific Plan No. 1 (Campos Verdes) and Specific Plan No. 255 (Winchester Hills), are developed. These additional areas of significant impact are: Seismic Safety, Flooding, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation and Traffic, Fire Services, Sheriff Services, Schools, Utilities and Libraries. As part of the certification of the EIR in 1993, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations detailing why the project was approved in light of the unavoidable environmental effects. The 1994 EIR Addendum incorporated technical analysis (in the Areas of traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding) into the R:\FORMS\STAFFRFr.CC 7/29/97 klb 2 Final EIR and integrated additional/revised mitigation measures into the Mitigation Monitoring Program. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. Because the IES concluded that no subsequent or supplemental EIR was required for this project. Request for an Updated Traffic Analysis The appellant has requested an updated Traffic Analysis. The Council has received copies of the following traffic analysis performed for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report: EIR No. 340 Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan -Circulation and Traffic; Temecula Regional Center Specific EIR - Traffic Study Update; Addendum Traffic Issues - October 15, 1992; Temecula Urban Core Projects CMP Traffic Impact Analysis - November, 1992; and Supplemental Traffic Analysis - General Kearny Road Extension. In addition, per the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, the applicant prepared subsequent traffic analyses for their project (dated January, 1997 and May, 1997). Staff feels the quantity and quality of the information contained in these documents adequately addresses the traffic impacts from this project, as well as the existing and proposed traffic in the immediate area. The adequacy of the traffic analysis was not questioned by anyone during the process. Impact of the Mall Project on Small Businesses The basis of the appeal focuses on a violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The claim that the project will have an impact upon existing businesses has nothing to do with the EIR, as this type of analysis is not required under CEQA. It is staff's opinion there will be some initial impact on small businesses from a regional mall; however, the long- term affect should be positive for most businesses. The mall will draw shoppers from a greater market area (10-20 miles). This would create a synergistic effect, whereby businesses would benefit from being in the same area as a regional mall. Cost of Mitigation Exceeding Revenues Generated A statement was made by the appellant that the cost of mitigation for this project would exceed revenues generated by the project. The expected cost of improvements for the project is 7.1 million dollars. Revenues are projected to be approximately 1.5 million dollars per year for the mall area alone, exclusive of the power center and the outlying pads. In addition, over 1.8 million dollars in Development Impact Fees will be paid by the developer. Therefore, the the cost of mitigation for this project will not exceed revenues generated by the project. R:\FORMS\$TAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 klb 3 Erroneous Traffic Forecast at Build-out of the City A statement is made by the appellant that there is an erroneous traffic forecast for the City of Temecula at build-out. This statement is inacurate and has been addressed in Attachment No. 7 (a letter to Staff from Wilbur Smith Associates dated July 28, 1997). This letter states: "The methodology used to forecast traffic flows at project build-out was not based on assumptions of compound traffic growth .... but rather a comprehensive forecasting study of future traffic conditions resulting from cumulative development in the study area." The letter further elaborates that in the Temecula Regional Center EIR Traffic Study, cumulative development assumptions for the project build-out scenario were very conservative (high) in that they included the following: existing development, build-out of all approved County of Riverside projects, all City of Temecula projects and the project itself, build-out of all planned but not approved projects within two miles and fifty percent (50%) build-out of all other major projects within the Southwest Area Community Plan which had been identified as having plans in progress. It should be noted that recent specific plan amendments in the City of Temecula for Campos Verdes, Winchester Meadows, Margarita Village, Paloma del Sol and specific plan amendments in the County of Riverside for Winchester 1800 and Rancho Bella Vista have resulted in overall residential dwelling unit reductions relative to the originally approved development plans. Annual Compounded Traffic Growth Rate A statement is made by the appellant that the annual compounded traffic growth rate is in excess of eight percent (8%). Staff is unable to determine how this percentage was derived at, as no methodology is presented. The appellant has equated population growth with traffic growth. This statement is inaccurate and has been addressed fully in Attachment No. 7 (a letter to Staff from Wilbur Smith Associates dated July 28, 1997). The letter states: "it is important to understand that the length of time necessary to achieve the cumulative development condition is not important, as long as the magnitude of new development assumed is to occur in the study area by project build-out is not understated." The letter further states: "The issue of annual traffic growth rates has no relevance to the analysis of cumulative traffic conditions at project build-out or at City General Plan build-out for several reasons. The rate of traffic growth on a particular roadway is primarily related to the rate of new development occurring in the area which ultimately uses the road. Given a defined cumulative development scenario (such as project build-out or City build-out) for which ultimate traffic conditions have been projected, the rate at which area development occurs and the associated traffic growth rate will not change the ultimate build-out development level/traffic condition. The rate of development/traffic growth will, however, have an impact on the length of time required to achieve the defined build-out condition. Assumptions regarding pace of development and associated rate of traffic growth are therefore relevant only to the phasing of area circulation improvement needs." Immediate Analysis of Traffic Congestion in "Plain Understandable Language" A statement is made by the appellant that an immediate analysis of the traffic congestion is required to be furnished to the citizens in "plain understandable language." It is staff's assumption that this statement is in reference to Section 15140 of the CEQA Guidelines which states: "EIR's shall be written in plain language and may use appropriate graphics so that decision- makers and the public can rapidly understand the documents." While it is the intent of CEQA to inform the decision makers and the public of the impact a project may have on the R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.CC 7/29/~7 klb 4 environment, often times much of the information is technical in nature. Each Traffic Analysis prepared for the project contained a summary which was written in plain understandable language. The supporting infomation is more technical in nature. In the event that any language is not clear in the environmental document, staff has been available to assist the public. The appellant has reviewed the environmental documentation for this project and staff has met with him to clarify any issues with him. FISCAL IMPACT Revenues are projected to be approximately 1.5 million dollars per year for the mall area alone, exclusive of the power center and the outlying pads. In addition, over 1.8 million dollars in Development Impact Fees will be paid by the developer. Attachments: o 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. City Council Resolution - Page 6 Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Page 12 Appeal Application - Page 26 Planning Commission Staff Report (June 2, 1997) - Page 27 Planning Commission Staff Report (June 2, 1997) - Page 28 Planning Commission Minutes (July 7, 1997) - Page 29 Planning Commission Minutes (July 7, 1997) - Page 30 Letter to Staff from Wilbur Smith Associates, dated July 28, 1997 - Page 31 R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 Idb 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 97- R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 klb 6 AT'FACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - APPEAL), UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - MALL AND POWER CENTER SITE PLAN, MALL AND POWER CENTER ELEVATIONS, MALL AND POWER CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN, MALL AND POWER CENTER COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARDS, ROBINSONS-MAY SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN, ROBINSONS- MAY ELEVATIONS, ROBINSONS-MAY COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD, SEARS SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN, SEARS ELEVATIONS, AND SEARS COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD) BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK WItEREAS, Forest City Development, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) on June 2, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WItEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) on lune 2, 1997 to the June 16, 1997 Planning Commission hearing; WHEREAS, the applicant requested Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) be continued by the Planning Commission at their June 16, 1997 Planning Commission hearing; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission canceled their meeting on June 16, 1997; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) on July 7, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 lifo 7 WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan); WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission heating, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan); WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Appeal) was fried on July 21, 1997; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Appeal) on August 4, 1997, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application No. PA97-0118; WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding Planning Application No. PA97-0118; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMF.,CULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. findings; to wit: Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's General Plan, Specific Plan No. 263, and Ordinance No. 96-24 (An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula, California approving a Development Agreement (Planning Application No. PA97-0333) between the City of Temecula, Forest City Development California, Inc. and LGA-7, Inc.). 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3. Environmental Conlpliance. The City Council hereby further finds and determines that the Project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and that no additional environmental review is needed for the following reasons: A. On July 13, 1993, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 93-57 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 340 with addendum, adoption of the Statements of Overriding Consideration and approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program on property located at the southeast corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads and known as R:WORMS\STAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 klb 8 Assessor's Parcel No(s) 910-130-046, 047; 921-090-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, and 006," certifying the Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 263 and Zone Change 5589 for the Property. B. Additionally, on October 11, 1994, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 94-100 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula adopting the addendum to the FEIR No. 340; to adopt an addendum to FEIR No. 340 including a new Mitigation Monitoring Program and determining no additional impacts as a result of changing the circulation mitigation measures located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Ynez Road and Winchester Road." The Council found at this time that the proposed specific plan and zone change did not change any of the impacts identified in FEIR No. 340, none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR had occurred, only minor technical changes or adrh'tions were necessary to make FFJR No. 340 adequate under CEQA, and the changes to the EIR by the Addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. C. The proposed Development Plan incorporates the provisions of the City's General Plan, Specific Plan No. 263, the current zoning regulations for the Property, the Mitigation Plan of Environmental Impact Report No. 340 and such other ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvement, development fees, and construction standards applicable to the Property. All of the components of the proposed Development Plan which might affect the environment were discussed and analyzed in FEIR 340. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for the Amendment unless required by 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15161 or 15163. D. The Staff of the Planning Department has prepared an Initial Environmental Study, dated May 15, 1997 analyzing the proposed Development Plan and the prior environmental actions on the Project, which Initial Study is incorporated herein by this reference. E. Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration of the evidence, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that neither a Subsequent EIR a Supplemental EIR, nor further environmental review is required for the Development Plan pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163, based on the following findings of the Planning Commission: F. The elements of the Project as described in the Development Plan were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the EIR certified and approved by the City Council on July 13, 1993 and the Addendum thereto approved on October 11, 1994 for the approval of Specific Plan 263 and Zone Change 5589. G. There have been no subsequent changes to the Project since October 11, 1994 which would require major revisions of the previous FEIR and Addendum due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. R:'~FORM$\STAFFRPT.CC 7129197 klb 9 H. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR and Addendum due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. I. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that the Project might have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR and Addendum. J. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that significant effects previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR and Addendum. K. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. L. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that mitgafion measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR and Addendum would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Section 4. Conditions. That the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission approving Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Mall and Power Center Site Plan, Mall and Power Center Elevations, Mall and Power Center Landscape Plan, Mall and Power Center Color and Material Boards, Robinsons-May Site/Landscape Plan, Robinsons-May Elevations and Robinsons-May Color and Material Board) based upon the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report subject to the Conditions of Approval on file in the office of the City Clerk. Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. R:\FORMS\STAI~FRFr.cc 7/29/97 klb 10 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 4th day of August, 1997. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 97-~ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of August, 1997 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: C OUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, CMC City Clerk R:WORMS\$TAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 klb 11 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 klb 12 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) Project Description: The design and construction of a 1,019,846 square foot regional mall, a 403,000 square foot power center (retail), a 80,000 square foot cinema and 235,000 square feet of future retail space on 133.5 acres Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 910-130-047, 910-130-052, 910-130-053, 910-130-054, 921-090-048, 921-090-051,921-090-053, 921-090-056 July 7, 1997 July 7, 1999 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48} Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition. General Requirements The Applicants and Owners of each parcel within the subdivision, jointly and severally, shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA97- 0118 (Development Plan), which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the Applicant and Owners of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, Applicant and Owners shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. R:\FORMS\$TAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 kib 13 This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D (Site Plan - Ultimate Development), as approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118, or as amended by these conditions. a. A minimum of 6,904 parking spaces shall be provided. b. A minimum of 121 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in accordance with the City's Development Code. Access from the outlots to the ring road shall be limited to a maximum of one (1) per outlot building. Outlot buildings shall be generally located as close as possible to the public streets to provide a distinctive streetscape. Parking for the outlots shall be primarily oriented toward the ring road and mall. Areas identified for future expansion shall be approved by the Community Development Director if the elevations are consistent with the previously approved elevations for the project. If the elevations are not consistent, the Community Development Director may take the plans for the proposed expansion before the Planning Commission for review and approval. Outdoor display of merchandise, which is sold within the established use shall be prohibited, except in the entertainment plaza area. Added at the Planning Commission hearing July 7, 1997. Landscaping for the mall, power center and outlots shall conform substantially with Exhibit E (Conceptual Landscape Plan) and E-1 (Landscape Enlargements), as approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. Any changes to the landscape plans which are determined by the Planning Manager not to substantially conform with the approved conceptual landscape plan (by more than 5%) shall be referred back to the Planning Commission for their review and approval. Added at the Planning Commission hearing July 7, 1997. Landscaping for each component of the project shall be installed prior to the Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the specific component. R:~FORMS\$TAFFRPT.CC 7129197 klb 14 10. Per thc Tc,~"necula Regional Centcr Specific Plan, a 50% minimum averag~ actual parking stall (space) area shall be shao~,d. The applicant shall submit landscape plans to the Community Devclolc, ment Depa. [.~ent - Planning Division for review and approval which reflect this requircmcnt prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Mall or Power C~nter component of the project, whichever comes first. As an alternative The applicant may file for review and receive approval of a Specific Plan Amendment for the 50% minimum average actual parking stall (space) area shading requirement in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan prior to the issuance of any building permit {if applicable). Amended at the Planning Commission hearing July 7, 1997. Fifty percent (50%) of the parking spaces for the power center component of the project shall be shaded. Amended at the Planning Commission hearing July 7, 1997. All disturbed and unbuilt areas which will have interim landscaping shall be landscaped in accordance with the City's Development Code. A mixture of Liquidambar and Eucalyptus (Citreadora is preferred) trees, shall be used in the parking lot for the mall. Added at the Planning Commission hearing July 7, 1997. Sidewalks shall be installed in accordance with Exhibit F (Sidewalk Plan). Building elevations for the Mall shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, and Exhibit H (color elevations) or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used for the Mall shall conform substantially with Exhibit I, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Materials Cloth (Canopy) Aluminum (Storefront) Metal (Entry) Roof Cap Sheet Glass (Vision) Glass (Spandrel) Stucco (Walls) Stucco (Accent) Stucco (Accent) Stone (Capital, Column, Accent) Concrete (Walkways) Concrete (Entertainment Plaza and Entryways) Stone (Walkways) Colors Sherwin Williams #SW1468 (Tourmaline) Sherwin Williams #SW1320 (Tasteful Tan) Sherwin Williams #SW2419 (Tempest Blue) Sherwin Williams #SW1462 (Park Bench) Ford (Ford Blue) Ford (Dark Blue) Sherwin Williams #SW 1074 (Ostrich Feathers) Sherwin Williams #SW1316 (Winnipeg Sand) Sherwin Williams #1066 (Salmon Suede) Adonquin de Cantera Natural Gray Majorea Terra Cotta #406, #400 and #408 Building elevations for the Power Center shall conform substantially with Exhibit J, and Exhibit K (color elevations) or as amended by these conditions. R:~FORMS\$TAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 klb 15 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Colors and materials used for the Power Center shall conform substantially with Exhibit L, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Materials Aluminum (Storefront) Metal (Grill) Metal (Roof) Glass (Vision) Stucco (Field, Cornice) Stucco (Building Base, Accent) Stucco (Accent) Stucco (Accent) Stucco (Accent) Stone (Capital, Column, Accent) Stucco (Cornice) Concrete (Building Base) Concrete (Roof) Colors Sherwin Williams #SW1320 (Tasteful Tan) Sherwin Williams #SW2419 (Tempest Blue) Sherwin Williams #SW1462 (Park Bench) Ford (Clear) Sherwin Williams #SW 1074 (Ostrich Feathers) Sherwin Williams #SW1316 (Winnipeg Sand) Sherwin Williams #1066 (Salmon Suede) Dunn-Edwards DE1037 (Nutmeg) Dunn-Edwards DE169 (Carmel) Adonquin de Cantera (Color 1, 2 and 3) Sherwin Williams #SW 1109 (Aria Ivory) To Match Adonquin de Cantera Monier #12600 (Vermont Green) Landscaping for Robinsons-May shall conform substantially with Exhibit M, as approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. Any changes to the landscape plans which are determined by the Planning Manager not to substantially conform with the approved conceptual landscape plan (by more than 5%) shall be referred back to the Planning Commission for their review and approval. Added at the Planning Commission hearing July 7, 1997. Building elevations for Robinsons-May shall conform substantially with Exhibit N, and Exhibit 0 (color elevations) or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used for Robinsons-May shall conform substantially with Exhibit P, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Materials Stone (Entrance) Stone (Entrance) Stone (Entrance) Plaster/Stucco (Walls) Plaster/Stucco (Walls) Plaster/Stucco (Walls) Aluminum (Canopy and Storefront) Concrete (Walkways) Concrete (Walkways) Colors Ameristone #17 (Sedona Red) Ameristone #13 (Woodbury Pink) Ameristone #14 (White Ash) Sherwin Williams SW 1067 Sherwin Williams SW 1065 Sherwin Williams SW 1064 Clear Anodized Aluminum Natural Concrete Chromix Admixture #5234 Landscaping for the Sears Department Store and the Sears Auto Service Center shall conform substantially with Exhibit Q, as approved with Planning Application No. PA97- 0118, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is R:\FORMS\$TAFFP. PT.CC 7/29/97 klb 16 16. 17. 18. determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. Any changes to the landscape plans which are determined by the Planning Manager not to substantially conform with the approved conceptual landscape plan (by more than 5%) shall be referred back to the P~anning Commission for their review and approval. Added at the Planning Commission hearing July 7, 1997. Building elevations for the Sears Department Store and the Sears Auto Service Center conform substantially with Exhibit R, and Exhibit S (color elevations) or as amended by these conditions. Added at the Planning Commission hearing July 7, 1997. Colors and materials used for the Sears Department Store and the Sears Auto Service Center shall conform substantially with Exhibit T, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Materials Stone Wainscot (Building Base) Exterior Insulation and Finish System (Canopy and Auto Center Overhang) Exterior Insulation and Finish System(Entrance) Exterior Insulation and Finish System(Base and Trim) Exterior Insulation and Finish System(Field} Aluminum (Storefront Doors) Aluminum (Storefront) Concrete (Columns) Colors Adonquin de Cantera (Gray Group 1) STO industries (VT70262 -White) STO industries (VT70263 - Light Beige) STO industries (VT70265 - Dark Beige) STO industries (VT70264 - Medium Beige) Permanodic Clear No. 17 Durnar Finish: Bone White White Added at the Planning Commission hearing July 7, 1997. Prior to any application submittal for any of the periphery developments along Winchester and Ynez Roads, Pads A, B, and C, Major Retail F, G, H, and I, the applicant shall submit five (5) copies of a Design Manual for review by the Community Development Department - Planning Division and approval by the Planning Commission. Said Design Manual shall enumerate the design elements which are appropriate for the development. The applicant shall pay the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). The Community Development Director shall have the authority to approve any development which is consistent with the Design Manual without a public hearing. The fee for those projects which are consistent with the Design Manual shall be the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). If the Director determines the project is not consistent with the Design Guidelines, or the project would require a Conditional Use Permit (per Specific Plan No. 263), the matter will be set for a Planning Commission hearing and the appropriate full Application Fee will be required. R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.CC 7129197 klb 17 Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 19. If the project is to be built in phases, the applicant shall submit a phasing to include: a site plan, sidewalk plan and landscape plan to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a precise grading plan. 20. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation). 21. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No. 263/EIR No. 340 have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 22. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid for each of the following components of the project: Mall, Power Center, Outlots, Department Stores, Cinema, Plaza, Entertainment Plaza Retail and 50,000 square foot retail. 23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the mall or power center, whichever comes first, three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans (minimum 1 "= 50' scale) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. In addition, all major and minor entry features and monumentation and the corner landscape and monumentation features (Winchester and Ynez Roads and Winchester and Margarita Roads) shall be included on the plans. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). 24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Robinsons-May, Sears, the Sears Auto Service Center, Anchor Numbers 3 and Anchor Numbers 4, the Cinema, the area identified as "future 50,000 square feet retail," and each of the outlots, the applicant(s) shall submit three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans (minimum 1 "=50' scale) to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: R:\FORMS\$TAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 irJb 18 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any future expansions to the anchors or cinema identified on Exhibit D, or any other component of the project, the applicant(s) shall submit a Development Plan to the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Said Development Plan shall be accompanied by the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No. 263/EIR No. 340 have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for either the plaza area, the cinema or the area identified on Exhibit D as "Entertainment Plaza Retail" (whichever comes first), a detailed site and landscape plan (1"=20' scale) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval. The plan should attempt to incorporate many of the following amenities into the plaza area: planter boxes w/trees and seating area, benches, stage area, tables, chairs, shade structures to include trellises w/vines & misters, shaded turf open space, awnings, shaded seating areas, street lamps, trash receptacles, a fountain/water feature, art/sculptures, a variety of color, hanging plants, seasonal color (plantings), decorative bollards, enhanced paving areas, archways/gateways, outdoor movie screen, a gazebo, outdoor vendor carts, heaters, fans, and clock(s). Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Cinemas, JC Penney's, Anchor No. 4 and the area identified as "50,000 retail," each applicant shall submit a Development Plan application for review by the Community Development Department - Planning Division and approval by the Planning Commission. Said Development Plan application shall be accompanied by the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any component of the project, the applicant shall submit detailed landscape and monumentation plans for the intersections of Winchester and Ynez Roads and Winchester and Margarita Roads to the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Said plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Added at the Planning Commission hearing July 7, 1997. R:\FORMS\$TAFFRPT.CC 7/29197 klb 19 Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 30. Prior to the Issuance of the first Occupancy Permit, the applicant shall submit five (5) copies of a Sign Program for the project to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval by the Planning Manager. The sign program shall address appropriate colors, materials, heights and locations for the signage (wall-mounted, monument and directional) and shall be accompanied by the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). 31. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy for the site, all major and minor entry features and monumentation shall be installed. The corner landscape and monumentation features (Winchester and Ynez Roads and Winchester and Margarita Roads) shall be installed. 32. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view from adjacent public streets. 33. Prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each component of the project, sidewalks shall be installed for that component. 34. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy for each component of the project, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed in accordance with approved landscape and irrigation plan and be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 35. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. R:~FORM$\ffrAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 i[lb 20 36. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for each component of the project. 37. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 38. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No. 263/EIR No. 340 have been satisfied for this stage of the development. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 39. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 40. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plans for approval. 41. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 42. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 43. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations and must be fully detailed for plan check submittal. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). 44. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 45. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 46. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C and State of California Title 24, Part 2 Accessibility Standards. 47. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with Building and Fire Codes. 48. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 49. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 50. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record, the truss manufacturer's engineer are required for plan review submittal. R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 klb 21 51. Provide an approved precise grading plan with plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. General Requirements 52. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 53. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 54. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and landscape and irrigation plans and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 55. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and City of Temecula Standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The grading plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. 56. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 57. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 58. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 59. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.CC 7/29197 ~ 22 to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 60. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 61. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Fish & Game Army Corps of Engineers 62. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 63. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 64. An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to or deferred by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 65. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. 66. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 67. Parcel Map 28530 shall be approved and recorded. 68. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 69. The Developer/Owner shall pay the Development Mitigation Fee in compliance with Planning Application No. PA96-0333 (Development Agreement); the terms as identified in Section (3) of Item 6 the Agreement. This fee is in lieu of the signal mitigation and development impact fees. R:~'ORMS\STAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 idb 23 70. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City of Temecula Standard No. 113. d. All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. f. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility, 71, The Developer shall construct the following improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works, a. On-site traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities, except as otherwise provided for in Planning Application No. PA96-0333 (Development Agreement) c. Sewer and domestic water systems 72. On-site bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA) and approved by the Department of Public Works. 73. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 74. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: · Rancho California Water District · Eastern Municipal Water District 75. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. R:\FORM$\STAFFRPT.CC 7129197 klb 24 76. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. OTHER AGENCIES 77. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March 24, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 78. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated April 28, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 79. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Fire Department's transmittal dated May 20, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 80. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California Department of Transportation's transmittal dated April 29, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 81. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated April 28, 1997, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Applicant's Signature R:\FORMS\$TAFFRPT.CC 7129197 irJb 25 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 APPEAL APPLICATION R:\FORMS\STAFFRFr.cc 7/29/97 Idb 26 ALBERT S. PRATT 40470 Brimon Cove Teme~ula, CA 92591 (Emsil: m tt plufinfo.com) (909) 699-g699 C~lif~mi. ~i~: Civil ~a~rNe. 7~97 Monday, July 21, 1997 Mrs. June Crrc~k City Clerk Tcmccula City Council City of Tcmecula 43200 Busincas Park Drive Tcmecula, CA 92590 (909) 694-6444 FAX (909)694-1999 Subject: Appeal - Piarming Commission's Action of July 7, 1997 on Albert S. Pratt Petition for a Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report on PA97-0118 A cheek in the amount of $351.00 payable to the City of Tenwcula (attached) for submission of Appeal to the Decision of the Planning Commission Case No. PA97- 01~g, in accordance with Development Code Section 17.03.090 Development Code Section 17.03.090 (f) Notice of Appeal - Contents (1) a. The specific deoision appcaled f~n: Approval of Planning Application No. PA97- 0~18 (Development Plan), Applicant Forest City Development, Inc. (1)b. The specific grounds of the appeal: Environmental Impact Report No. 340 supporting Specific Plan No 263, violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21166 (b) and (c), CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, by failure to Provide a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR addressing the Traffic Impact as a result of the Forest City Mall Development on the City of Temccula and "the sphere of ln:fluencc" resulting :from substantial ~lmages oca;urring with respect to the circutmtmcc~ under which tl~ project i~ muiertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. New Information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the enviromnental impact report was certiiied a~ complete ha~ become available. (1) c. The relief or action sought fi'om the City Council: Direct the City Staff to Provide a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR addressing the Tra~c Impact as a result of the Forest City MaLl Development in light of the new accurate a_?__~ now available. Please see also attached forms provided by thc Planning Commission substantially confuming the abovc statements. ALBERT/5. PRA'I'T 40470 Brixton Cov~ T~mecula, CA 92591 (9O9) 699-8689 Civil r~in~r 8n~nnl ~ No. 650 The Council is to be advivat ~at the citizens who a~rt the request for an updated traffic study based on existing and recent past - since the inception of the City of Temecula - traffic volume congestion - find that the present conditions arc intolerable. The small business retailing community will suffer economically. This will result in vacancies, and the attending reduction in commercial pxoInaxy values. A full assessment ofthc r~ion's traffic congestion and a rcsponsc plan is mandatory prior to thc epproval of any additional traffic-gcncrating dcvclopmcnt, including the Forest City Mall. See The Prcss-Entcrprisc, Tcmecula-Murricta Edition, Friday July 18, 1997," 'Road Rage" gcts attention of Congress". A House panel is told "anger is a cause of 28,000 highway deaths a year". (a copy of this article is attachcd, Item 28). The eventual cost of traffic mitigation fithe present traffic congestion plan is not updated can be many times the revenue received by thc City of Tcmccula. Knowing the estimated cost of mitigation now can result in millions of dollars in savings to the taxpayer. The Wilbur Smith and Associates Study, and public statements beforc the Tcmccula Planning Commission by the traffic engineer of the Developer of the Forera City Mall erroneously forecast a mitigated traffic situation at "build out" of the City of Temecula General Plan, and traffic mitigation in the vicinity of the Mall upon completion of the Overland Bridge, and Rancho California/I-15 Intersection bridge widening and ramp construction. The actual annual compounded traffic growth ratc is in excess of 8%. This in sharp contrast to the lower assigned rate (2%) previously noted, and completely negatea the traffic mitigation in the vicinity of ~hc proposed Forest City Mall, and with the proposed area wide projects, ie: Dominogoni Reservoir, lg00 W'mchester Housing Project, Bella Vista Housing Project the Wilbur Smith and Associates traffic analysis is not erroneous for the City of Temccula even without the construction of the proposed Forest City Mall. An immediate analysis of the traffic congestion is required to be furnished to the citizens in "plain understandable language". This should also be a concern to the develooers of the Forest City Mall..Ifthc traffic becomcs too congcstcd customers will fmd other areas to shop aftcr the initial euphoria. The City of Tcmccu-la must appraise the mcrit-bf this ~ and take the aplaca,,iatc action of preparing a Subsequent or Supplcmcntal EIIL It is mandatory that the City 2 P,~ ,~ERT S. PRATT 4047O Brixton Tcmecula, CA 92591 (Eraall: mapratt alphainfo.c, om) (909) 699-$689 Civil r~si~ ~ 7697 8m~n~l ~ No. 650 Council direct the City Staff to invcstigatc tho current and futurc traffic congestion of the City of Temecula of which the Forest City Mall is a 'catalyst" for major rattic ¢ongcsfion. Iflhc City Council does not address the 9rolect's cumulaUvelv sk, nificant Impacts on traffic and provide an updated FIR containing a current traffic analysis and mitigation plan as reXluircd by CBQA, tho taxpaycm will hav~ no rccoumc but to scok judicial rcvicw. Attachments: Supporting Documents: 1. Director of Community Dcvclopmcnt, Gary Thornhill, Lcttcr of July 9, 1997. Mr. ThornM!l conccdcs that thc City has considcrcd no traffic a_:,t~__ for this project since an Addumdum to Final Environmental Impact report for the Tcmccula Rcgional Specific Plan was adopted by thc City Council on October 11, 1994. At an annual compounded traffic growth factor of 8% sincc the Wilbur Smith and Associatcs Study was compiled in 1991, actual area traffic has grown 60% vorsus thc erroneous compoundc~l annual traffic growth rate of the 1991 Draft F. IR of 13%. Actual trafiSc has grown morc than 4.6 times in this 6 year pcriod more than projcctcd in the 1991 Draft EIR prepared by Wilbur Smith and Associatcs. 2. Letter pr~cnt©d to Planning Commission, July 7, 1997 3. A.S. Pratt Letter to Tcmccula City Manager, Tcmc~ula City Council, T~mccula Planning Commission and Tcmccula Rexlovclopmcnt Agency of June 29, 1997 4. Letter of City of Temecula, John Pourkazcmi, Associate Engineer of June 9, 1997, indicatcs an annual 2% compoundcd Ira:ffic growth. This factor of 2% annual compounded Wafttic growth rate confares our position that the CRy Council has not addressed the Droiect's cumulatively sinnificant imvacts on traffic and has not provided an updatcd EIR containing a current traffic analysis and mitigation plan as rcquirexl by CEQA. 5. A.S. Pratt Letter to Planning Commission of June 2, 1997 6. Temccula City Manager's L~ttcr of Juno 20, 1997. "Staff conducted a new Initial Environmental Study for the Mall Project and-ilctcrmincd impacts fi'om the project wcrc within the thrcsholds cstablishcd undcr thc prcviomly ccrtificd EIR. A traffic study was 1,~ BERT $. PRATT 4O47O Brixl~ Cove Tcmccula, CA 92591 (F. mail: mVntt aiphainfo.com) performed for the mall project and it concluded that lraific generated by the project was within the parameters examined in the previous study performed for the project". This study acccptcd the tra~c analysis under thc prcviously ccrtificd EIR, ignoring the new traffic congcstion generated by an accelerated growth rate in the area at lcast 4 times that used in the approved EIR. Thc ncw Initial Eavironmcntal Study was not circulated to public agencies, and lhc citizens of Tcmecula and Ihe "sphere of influence" were not publicly notified of the new documents and have not had thc opportuttity to review and conuncnt. Thc New Environmental Study is not acceptable and violates CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. 7. A.S. Pratt Letter to City Council, April 23, 1996, comparing field traffic counts against EIR traffic data. 8. Consistency Guidelines for Tt-amportafion Modeling and Traffm forcentring Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, January 1995, pp. 1920 9. Level of Servicc Criteria for $ign~li?cd Intersections, HCM less than TRB, 1985 10. Southwest Area Planning District ($WAPD), Travel Forecast Model Pilot, Phase 1, Area Model, Validation Report, July 18. 1996, Table 3, pp. 33, 34, 35, 36 11. W'fibur Smith and Associates, 1997 Traffic Update to: 12. EIR No. 340, Table 5b, ICU Sun-aaary Year 2000 with project 13. EIR No. 340, Section D, p. 12, indicates traffic counts for 1990 traffic were factored at 14% per year on local roadways and 10% on peak hour factors. (This is 5 to 7 times greater than trat~ic estimates of 2% compounded annually resulting in LOS of acceptable amounts) 14. EIR No. 340, p. 35, comments on traffic congestion that cannot be mitigated in the present report. 15. EIR No. 340, p. 10, comments that "land true de-intensifie, ation" could improve problem n'aflic corridors. 16. EIR No. 340, p 9, Phase 3 Traffg Projections "= - - Level of gervice E wa~ forecasted to occur on 4 City of Temecula corridor sections. 17. EIR No. 340 p.7, 3~d paragraph, Level of Service E and F forecasted on build-out of the City, Sphere of Influence, Murrieta and other lind uses within Riverside County's Southwest Area. 1 g. EIR No. 340, Figure 2, Study Area 19. EIR No. 340, Project Opening, Projected Weekday PM Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes, 20. Winchester 1800 Specific Plan, SCH 92032040, ~ber 1994. The traffic circulation comments delineated in this document are a part of our presentation. This is a public document ~vailablc for review and dd~ to length and complcxity a complctc copy is not attachcd. Particular attention is directcd to thc scctions and appcndiccs. Wc 4 ALBERT $. PRATT 4O47O Brixton Cove Tcmccula, CA 92591 Wxatt hainfo.c. ) (9O9) 699-8689 have attached p. 85, Section IX, Findings and Conclusions. Paragraph B. Traffic Impacts. 6555 vehicles per during the AM peak hour and 11,200 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hours. Assuming only 30% 0967 vehicles l~r hour AM, and 3360 vehicles pcr hour PM) of this estimated traffic would usc Winchester Road SR79N to the south this would cxcccd all projected traffic cstimates at the Winchcster/Yncz intrrsection with our withore the construction of the Forest City Mall 21. Draft Subse~xm~ Environmental Impact Report No. 401, Rancho Bella Vista, Specific Plan No. 184, Amendment No. 2, September 1996, SCH No. 95112065. The Iraffic circulation comments delineated in this document ar~ a part of our presentation. Specific copies arc attached. This is a public document availablc for reMcw and due to length and complcxity a complete copy is not attached. 22. Southwest District Traffic Model IDSTMI Docum~tation, FeEmary 19, 1992. The traffic circulation comments delineated in this document ar~ a part of our prmentation, and spccific copies ar~ attachcd. This is a public document available for rcvicw and due to lcngth and complexity a complete copy is not attached. 23. Mctropolitan Water District Easl~ide Rescrvoir Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, Junc 1991. Thc traffic circulation commcnts delineated in this document arc a part of our prcscntation, and specific copies arc attachcd. This is a public document available for r~view and due to length and complexity a complete copy is not attached. 24-27. Slipporting data pl~parcd atica' July 7, 1997, Dated July 21, 1997. This data is used to confirm our statements that the compounded annual traffic growth rate is in excess of 4 timos the factor uscd in the Wilbur Smith and Associatcs Study. Statistics were analyzed from scvc~ml public sources noted below. Thc actual calculation work shccts arc attachcal. In support of thc compounded annual tra~c growth of thc City of Temecula thc following statistics have been compiled: From data furnished by the City of Temecula Financc Deparlmcnt; in the Comp~hcnsiv~ Annual Finmcc Report the City of Tcmecula grew at an annual compounded rate of 8.3% from 1~)0 through 1996. From data fumishcd by the City of Tcmecula Finance Deparlment the Gasoline Tax Rcwnuc grcw at an annual compounded growth rate of 9.2% from fiscal 1992/93 through fiscal 1998797. Rcficcting hhc impact 0Tthc "sphcrc ofinfiucncc" on thc City of Tcmccula. 5 C/v/l Fa~imm' N~. 7~97 ams~m~l ~ No. 6~0 AI RERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cov~ Tcmecula, CA 92591 alphaiafo.com) (909) 699-8689 From data furnished by the City of Temecula Financ~ Department the Motor Vehicle Fcc Rcvcnuc grew at an annual compounded growth rat~ of 9.2% from f~cal 1992/93 through fiscal 1996/97. Reflecting the impact of the 'sphc~c of influence" on thc City of Tcmecula. From data fumiahcd from the City of Tcmccula Comprehensive Annual Financial Report the population of the City from 1990 through 1996 grew at an annual compoundcd growth rate of 8.3% California Deparlmcnt of Finance ycarly population growth estimates from 1990 through 1996 indicatc an annual compoundcd growth rat~ of 9.45%. ColicS of hand prepared work shoots are attached to this rctx~ These work sh~ts wcrc prepared by ~ S. Pratt. They consist of field traffic counts ming hand held counters and r~ording the data after each surwy p,aiod. The timing of the intersection fight cycle at Winchcster Road and Yncz Road was checked and noted several times during the daily checks during the peak-hour eriemoon traffic periocL Car counts wcrc made of the various traffic laneS in scv~a'al directions based on thc intcrscction traffic cyclc and extrapolated to indicate the hourly rate. Referring to the Wilbur Smith and Associates (WSA) Figure 5, (hem 19) Project Opening Wcckday PM Pcak-Hour Traffic Volrunes, Tcraccula Regional Center: The critical intcrscction of Winchcster Road and Ynez Road and the controlling lanes, the center through lane on Winchester Road, from west to east, and the left turn lane on Yncz Road from north to west are ncar or cxceed the forecasted maximum pcakahour traffic. (Item 27) The field tra~c count on the center through lane on Winchester Road from west to cast was 1221 cats per hour, only 39 (3%) cars leSs than thc maximum volume forecast on WSA Fig. 5. The field traffic count on the left turn lane on Yncz Road from north to west was 901 cars per hour, 40 cars ~,reater than the maximum volume forecast on WSA Fi~. 5. In summary: Thc abovc statistical data indicatcs an annual compounded growth ratc of various indicators of population growth four (4~ times the erowth rate used in the Wilbur Smith Associates Traffic update amcnding the original EIR for the Project for the estimated initial three (3) year construction period. This is not acceptable and is a new and changcd conditions not addrcsscd in the EIR for thc Project, Forcst City Mall, and a Supplcmental or $ubsequcnt EIR must bc prepared. 6 ,~!~I~ERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Tomooula, CA 92591 (EmaC: -att alphaistfo.oom) (9O9) 699-8689 This Appeal and all supporting documentation has been prepared by ~ S. Pratt, P.E. I am a Registered Civil Engineer, California Reg. #7697, since August 19,1949 (47+ yea.~). I have the Authority to use the title Structural ~.%olneer, California Reg. g650, since April 3, 1953 (44 years). 7 City of Temecula Comm-nlt~ Development Department 43200 Busimp__ Park Drive · Temecula · CA · 92590 P.O. Box 9033, Temecula · CA · 92589-9033 (909) 6946400 · FAX (909) 694-6477 Appeal A. pURPO,~I:. The purpose of the appeal procedure is W provide a method of recourse for persons aggrieved by or dissatisfied with an action laken by an administrative agency of the City in the administration or enforcement of any pwvisions of the Development Code. B. FIT.ING 1. Development Application. 2. Appeal Form. 3. Filing Fee. C. NOTICE OF APPI::.AT. - TIMI=. LIMIT A notice of an appeal by any individual who is aggrieved by or dissatisfied with a decision made by ~ or in tzis behalf, or with any action, order, requirement, decision or determination shall not be acted upon unless filed within fiftee~ (15) calendar days after service of written notice of the decision. D. NOTICE OF APPEAl. - CONTE. NT.R ($1~a:ify Diretot of Planning or Planning Commiuion AND Action Date) Specify exactly what is being appealed: ~ ~6tt)f37' ~ ~'(~, fJ~e PArdi'r, od Reason or justification to support the appeal. Appellant must submit with this appeal each issue which the appellant alleges was wrongly determined together with every agreement and a copy of every item of evidence. (Attach sepm-a~ sheet of paper if necessary). Desired action to be taken: In the event any Notice of Appeal applicant fails to answer any information set forth above, then the request will be returned to the appellant, with a statement of the deficiencies. The appellant shall be allowed five (5) calendar days in which to mille the notice of appeal. City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 (909) 694-6400 · FAX (909) 694-6477 Dm~ $mmp DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S). PLANNING APPLICATION Type of Review Requested: [] D [] [] [] D D [] [] Annexation (AF) Appeal CEQA Conditional Use Permit [] Existing Building (MCUP) s New Building (In addition, check appropriate Development Plan) (CUP) Development Agreement (DA) Development Plan [] Over 10,000 square feet, subject to CEQA (PPN) [] Under 10,000 square feet, subject to CEQA (PP) [] Under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA (PPA) s Subdivision - Home Product Extension of Time for Planning Application No. General Plan Amendment (GPAS) Minor Exception (PP2) Specific Plan (SP) Tentative Parcel Map Tentative Tract Map Variance (VAIl) Zoning Amendment - Text or Map Change, Specific Plan Amedment (CZ) Other: R:'~FORMS~APPLfo~m.~t ,l~;y 16. 1997cc APPLIC. ANTfRRPRESBNT~O~ 'INI~RMA~ION PHONE NO. FAX NO. ADDRF_..~ OWNER PHONE NO. ADDRESS APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Project Information: Project Description/Use: Project Location: Application Type: Code General Plan: Res. Use Type: Gross Acres: Overall Project Square Footage: Related Cases: Proposed Project Pba6ag: Estimated Number of Employce~ Per Shift: Number of Lot/Units: FAX NO. (Office Use Only) # Units: # of Lots: Added Gross Acres: # Added Units: # Added Lots: Owner Certification Af'iag Lat.,"( bt~ p~,C- I certify that I am prgac,,tl.~ the legal ov.,~..r or the authori~ a~ent for the alx~-&sctilxd protx:,t~. acknowledge -J~e filL,ng of this al~cation ,and certif-ynthattaly~fvth6~,ove informa~on is true and accurate. R:\FORMS~APPLfo~m.wgd l~dy 16, l~;r'~ec 2 July 9, 1997 Mr. Albert S. Pratt 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 City of Temecula ~t3200 Business Park Drive · PO Box 9033 · Tgmecula · California 9 .2~V -9033 (909) 69~00 ·FAX (909) 694-~77 , SUBJECT: City of Temecula Response to Your Letter Dated June 29, 1997 Dear Mr. Pratt: Thank you for your continued in·rest in the Forest City Regional Mall project. Pursuant to your request of June 29, staff will gladly provide copies to you of all documents relating to the approval of the original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temeeula Regional Center Specific Plan. You may come in and review the documents at any time. If you want copies, a fee of $.25 per page will be assessed to cover copy costs. The public comment period for the draft EIR was between June 7, 1991 and July 26, 1991. The EIR was certified on July 13, 1993. The Notice of Determination (NOD) was filed with the County Clerk on July 15, 1993. I have attached a copy of the NOD per your request. An Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council on October 11, 1994. ;, '."-',..':.' : ~?. - ,'.2 ,' "' "' "' I trust that you received our response to your first letter dated June 20, 1997. In that letter we stated that an exhaustive analysis was performed on the subject site under the original EIR for a future regional mall. This use was one of many land uses anticipated in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan and EIR. Furthermore, traffic impacts relating to this project were fully analyzed and extensive mitigation measures were included as conditions of approval for the site. In summary, as staff indicated in our previous communication to you, we are confident that the approved EIR satisfactorily addressed all required CEQA issues relating to the project. Thank you for your interest in this matter. Sincerely, Gary Thomhill, AICP Director of Community Development Enclosure R:~,PLANNINO~PRATT.LTR 719197 klb JuN' !5. 1993 Pdch~d Haworth Coun:v C]c~k and Recorders Office. Coumv of PdversiJe --. . BOX 75' .'q.i~ crsid~. CA 92501-0751 SL-B.;ECT: Notice of Determination for Plot Plan No. 243, .Amendment No. 4; Tentative Parcel Map No. 27323. Amendment No. 4: P!arming Application No. 93-0043 (Change of Zonel: and Environmental Impact Report No. 340 (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan) Dear _\i:. Haworrh: Encle_.'_-d is the Notice of Determination tbr the above referenced projects. In addition. our':uan.'. co .*ssembh' Bill 3i55 (Chapter 1706) please find a check in tl:c amount of $900.0~. wh:ch inciu~es ,.he S850.00 fee required bv Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)r2) pt, us ti~e $50.00 C:_,unrv Ad:ninistmti:-e. The City of Temecu!a is paying the 550.00 filing tee under protest. !: is :hz opinion of the Citv that the County Clerk and Recordefts Office has increased the ~a a manner inconsistent with the provisions of State Law. Under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Ca!ir'omia Code Regulations 1507. the County is entitled to receive a $25..70 E[in~ .."ec. '::' '.'e:: !::.,.'c an,,' questions rcga. rdinz tkis matter please contact :i~e · City of Temecai Planning Department T,' Coumv Clerk a.d R~corders Office County of Riverside I:.O Box 751 Riverside. C.A t)2501-0751 From: Notice of Determination Piannmg Department Cky of Temecu!a 4317a Business Park Drixc Te:necula. CA 92591) Fil;ng or. Notice m' Determination for in cornpEance with the provisions af See:ion 21152 o;' the Pt, blic Resources C,.)dc. State Cieari;::l'i~ouqe Number: None .' ',',)i t'ct Tit. lea Plot .: km No. ')-V~ .-klncncJme::.r .',it. 4: Tentativ..: Parc:~i :..lap No. 2'7323. ' ..,o -,. Platrain,.: .-Xooiication No. e: nr,~. ,.,~: .. o., . = ...............~: Report No. 34C, LTemecula R=gion~ Cent.~r Specific Plan: l'rojecr Location: Lucatcd at [h,,2' southeast comer or' ]'ncz and \x,'[nchest,zr RoaJs Count'.' of Rivers/de. Cali£omia. Project Description: Not Plan Nu. 2-:'3. Amendment No..z is a proposal for 'z 340.03-' souarc ;~,,: :o::'.:::crc~::~ r.:~:::i :'c.r: ::' :c:;::::erz:al area. 09.700 qqu;:rc ;'cot Of shop5 area and 55.250 square .;eut ..'..7~i~za::~:: No. 95-00-'3 (Chang,: ,>f Zon:~ ~s :'. rcdcsignat.'on of 7. crtions of Assessor's Parce! Nur:.:C. crs ~ iU-gi 5.i:4;-, .::.C, . ~ ....... ~ .......... ( re)tact i',..r,,on: :,,?~-; .... ' F:tgzn'l'elephone .Xum})t,r: ;?/~t;l T::: ..:: .... ~",::c you thai ;!:c Ci:'. :',.::z:c~: :.t the ('it',' ,at' Ternccuia tla5 appro,,'ca the ::boat dc:;cri0ct; projc':r C~lif~mi. l~i~'mm: civil Fa~im~r No. Smm~ ALBERT S. PRATT 4O470 Brixton Cave Tcmec-h. CA 92591 (Email: com) (9o9) 6994699 Monday, July 07, 1997 T=necula Planning 43200 Bmin~ Park Ddv~ Temecula, CA 92390 Subject: Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) Applicant: Forest City Development, Inc. Reference: Tcmccula City IVlmmger's Letter of June 20. 1997 A.S. Pratt Letter to Tcmecula Planning Commi~on of June 2, 1997 P.S. Pratt Letter to Tcmccula C~7 Managct, Tcmccula City CoeadL Tcrnccula Planning Commission and Tcmccula Redevelopment Agency of June 29, 1997 This lctter adds information and comments to thc above refcrcnce~l documents. My presentation to the City of Temecula Planni~ Commission is to focus your attention on the Lcgialativc Intent of The California Environment~ Quality Act (CEQ^). CEQA and CEQA C-uidclincs are not to be intcrprcgd to promote a commercial project but to ensure its environmental compatii~ty with the c'gizcm in the "sphere of influence". The following quotations from CEQA and CEQA Cmidelines support this position. Members of the public hold a 'privilcgcd position" in the CEQA process. Such status reflects both 'a belief that 'c~tizens can make important conm~utions to environmental protection and notions of democratic decis/on making..." Chapter 1. Policy, Paragraph 21000 (d), 'The capacity of the environment is limited, and it is the intent of the Legishmre that the government of the state take immediate ste~ to identify any critical thresholds for the health and safety of the people of the state and take all coordinated actions necessary to prevent such thresholds being reached.' Chapter 1. Policy, Paragraph 21001 (d). ' Ea.sug that thc long-t~an protection of the environmenU consistent with the provisidn of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions." Csdifm~s~ P.%*~ *' C'~ii ~ No. 769T g;,~'-- ;.1 ~No, 65O ,~V.RERT S. PRATT 4O4?0 BrixUm Cow Tcmccnin, CA 92591 (Emai]: ~.~p,~alphabffo.com) (909) 699-8689 "Public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. Each public agency should include provisions for wida public involvement, formal and informal, consistcut with its existing activitics and procedm~ in order to ~ and evaluate public rcactions to mvironmcntal issues related to the agmcy's activifics". (CEQA Guidelines, Paragraph 15201, 15002 (j)). The Court has stated that CEQA should be "scrupulously followed", so that "the public will know the basis on which ~ rCSlXnm'ble officials either approve or re. jeer environmentally significant aclion", and will be able to "respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees.' Thus 'lhc E1R process protects not only the environment but also informed sclf-govmm~m." 0..m~l I-L-ights Improvement Association v. Rcgcms of the University of California (19SS), C'EQA Guidclincs, Paragraph 15003 (c). The courts have desert'bed EIR's as "environmental 'alarm bells' who's purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to cn~onmcntnl changes before they have reached ecological points of no return" (County ofh~yo v. Yorty (3~ Disuict 1973) CEQA Guidelines Article 10, Considerations in Preparing ~lP.s and Negative Dc¢larations, Paragraph 15140, "EIR.s shall bc written in plain language and may use appropriate graphics so that decision makers and the public can rapidly undcrstand the documcnts.' The present EIR and a rcccnt environmental impact review mcnfioncd by Plal~ng Director Gary Thornhill do not mcct CEQA requirements and therefore violate CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. I am requesting th~ follov~ng inform~on: The date of the EIR Nolicc of Prcparation. The date the Notice for Public Rcvicw was filed and the local news media in which it was published. (Public Rcsourccs Codc 21092 (3) (A)). The date the Notice for Public Rcvicw was filed and thc local ncws mcdia in which it was publishcd. (Public Rcsourccs Code 21092 (3) (A).) for public commcnt on the EIR. Thc datc the Noticc for Public Review was filcd and thc local ncws mcdia in which it was published. (Public Resources Codc 21092 (3) (A).) for public comment on thc 1997 traffic update by W'dbur Smith and Associates, (Public Resources Codc 21092 (3) (A).)7 -' ALBERT $. PRATT 4O470 Brimon Co~ T~nccula, CA 92591 (909) 699-8689 The date thc Noficc for Public Rcvicw was filed and thc local ncws mcdia in which it was published. (Public Resources Co~ 21092 (3) (A)), oflhc public r~iew period for the Draft EIR. (CEQA C~,iclcllnes_ Pm"agr~ 15105 (a)). The date the Nolicc for Public Review was filed and the local n~rs media in which i~ was published. (Public Resources Code 21092 (3) (A).) for "A full environm~ impact review was done for the project two ycar$ ago' commcnt by Planning director Gary Thomh/n/n The Californian July 4, 1997. It 'm clear to this writer that in the cnvimmnental interests of the 'ccdzcns of Tcmccula, and those in thc 'sphere of influence", with particular atzcntion to traffic compounded Waff/c growth Nrojccfions, ~ 'nnfig~on,/s m~nd,~d ~nd a Supplcmcn~l or Subsequin. t ~ must be prepm'~d for U~c Fore~ C/~y Mail Project Not addr~ing thcse conccms now will affcct the future acccptancc of thc Mal~ by the citizcns in the "spher~ of influence" and impact the financial success of the project I continu~ to support the concept of thc Forest City Mall and its prospect of bringing employment and tax revenue to Temecula. In this context I will be pleased to work with ~c Planning Conunission end thc Agency to develop long term solutions to the · ~u~ ch~ulatio~'~l cons~ cxacerba~d as a result of the propo~! Mall. Aitachmems: Bob Buster, Supcrv/sor, D/sUict 1, Co~ of~de F~ (~) 275-1019 ~ of~c C~ ofM~c~ md M~c~ C~ Co~c~ F~ 69g~5~ ~ M~e~ ~ C~ion F~ 6984509 R~ S~ - M~c~ C~z~ for R~31c ~o~ ~ ~- M~e~ Ci~ f~ R~~le ~o~ ~, ~ct g - ~: Bob ~ F~ (~) 393-7934 ~d~ Co~ T~~on Co--sion W~ ~~ ~ of ~~~ - ~. ~ Cro~ F~ (~9) 787- 7~1 SCAG - A~: ~c~l ~w~ F~ (9~) 784-39~ ~c ~~ ~c ~ ~~c, Tmcc~~ E~ C~ ~ T~ O~ ~.l RHRT $. PRATT 40470 Brimon Cove T~n~cula, CA 92591 (Em~: sa,upr~__zlph~nfo.com) (909) 699-g689 Repn:scntat~ 'cZizcns in the "sphere ofinfiucnce". Dr. David C. Robinson, D.O. FAX 698-2964 Dzvid Michcal - "The Villages" City of Tctnecula Joe Tcrrazas - Rainbow Canyon Villages Mr. and Mrs. James Ph~ - Glen Oaks Mr. and Mrs. Joel Banner - Redhawk FAX ALBI~RT $. PRATT 40470 Briton Cove Temecula, C.A 92~91 (909) 6~9-8689 ALBERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Tcmccula, CA 92591 (909) 699.-g689 California Registration: Civil Engineer No. 7697 Slzucntral l:-n~r~ecr No. 650 Monday, June 29, 1997 Mr. Ronald Bradley City M,xnager City of Temecula The Temccula City Council The Temccula Plantting Conmaission The Tcmecula Redevelopment Agency 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 FAX 694-1999 Subject: Tra~c Impact of the Proposed Forest City Mall, Re. quires a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21166 ~), (c). CEQA C-uidelines Section 15162, 15163. Reference: Your Letter of June 20. 1997 (Attached) A.S. Pratt Letter to Tcmecula Planning Commission of June 2, 1997, including April 23, 1996 letter on traffic (Attached) Dear Mr. Bradley, Members of the Tcm¢cula City Council, and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency: Thank you for the courtesy of your lime in preparing your above referenced letter and the offer of assistance of _l~thew Fagnn, Associate P_.l.mmer. ALBERT $. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (909) 699-8689 I was very ~ted by the action of the Tcmccula City Council in rejecting the rgomm~detio~s of ~ Staff with rt~rd to builder n~fion fccs. In my opinion, this is a major migtakc in judgemint, and may well have to bc ~ I am pr~cnting my views on the above a~bj¢ct for your r,~icw. Should City Staff wish to discuss any malz~ I support th~ c. mw~t of tim Form~ City MaR, and i ~ it will enh~m.c.~ th~ imag~ of T~m¢oda. Howdy'r, th~r~ is a pric~ to pay for anything of this magnitad~ in the City du~ to its uniqu~ location. Temccula is fortum~ to offer climate, phy~ic, al beauty, and a dcdicafion to scrviccs for thc youth and, scniors of thc community (not ~o mcntion the City's cffort to accclcrate Old Town Tctnccula cnhanccmcnt0. The Environmmtal Impact Rq~'t ~rR), used in support of the Fon:zt City Mall, was o 'nginally pry-pared for a hypothetical comm~'~al proj~t to b~ used by the d~v~l~ in marketing the property. The mitigation of tra~c congcsdon rcsulting in ac~.cptabl¢ Level Of Service (LOS) at major intets~dom was based on inaccurate assumpdom of compounded ~fiic growl:h. The mitigation measures in thc BIR may take years to accomplish and then will be unacceptable duc to an inaccurate traffic growth factor. I rccommcnd a minimum compoundcd annual tra~c growth factor of g%. The step by step "picccmcal" approach u, traffic mitigation will place the 'ceizcm of Temcc,,I,,. Murricta and the "~ph~rc of influence" in an area tnffic gddlock for years if not in~tcly causcd by an inaccuraW compoundcd traffic growth assumption, not bascd on existing conditions, and a phasing in ofin~dcquatc planned mil~.~on mcasurcs. CEQA rcquircs that the EIR bc ccrtificd within 150 days from the md of the public coremcat period. I am requestin~ the dates of' the end of the Public Comment Period, the 61~n8 of the No~cc of Determination, whcn the EIR was Ccrtificd, and the EIR filcd with the State Cicatin8 House. Thc formcr proposed Murricta Mall at the "Golden Triangle" site offered the minimum traffic congestion impact on thc Cilics of Tcrnccula, Murricta and the "sphere of influence". CEQA rcquircs a fcasibility study and conclusion of the acceptance or rcj¢cdon of an alternative site. No alternate sitc was considcrcd in ~c EIR. The location of thc proposcd Fo~t City Mall is gcographicaHy unfortunate as city and southwcst county gro~rth is focusing on Tcrncctti~ as the "tra~c congestion hub (TCH)". ALBERT $. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (909) 699-8689 1. Two state highway arteries arc undcniablc, I41_~way 798 and I'raghway 79N. These two highways will funnel tra~¢ into Tcmccula from pmpaaed, m~i increasing Domcnigoni Rcscrvoir will be beyond comprehension. I-15 acccss to Tcmccula ~ W'mchcstcr and Rancho California will providc accc~s to thc Mall fi'om the south, north and wcst. Rancho California will bc additionally burdened duc to traffic bypa~ng the W'mchcster Mail ace.s becau~ of congestion burdening thc Yncz corridor to thc north for return to the ~=n, 3. I-r. tghway 79S traffic wffi c'xaccrbatc the prcsent "in city traffic" by burdcning Margucaita Road to the Mail, Butterficld Stage Road to Rancho California Road and continued access to thc MaR, and access through residential areas using the Ranchitos access Roads. Access to the ~ Mall through the Meadowview ~division can be cxpcditcd by using the main intcmal ring roads of Via None and Del Rcy exiting via North Genial Ke, am~ to the MaIL The Meadowview ring road~ would be =c~.$~ ~Aa Av=nida Bar~a and Pina Colada. Rancho Ca~omia/Moraga Road Intcrscction: Moraga to and from Margarita Road, Pauba Road and Rancho Vista Road to and from ~ Road, Bmle~cld Stage Road and the interseclions with 5R79S, Pauba Road, and Rancho California Road, Ynez Road between Santiago Road and Margarita Road, will be burdened with additional trafSc generated by the Mall. The Rancho California Road and Margarita Road Intenection tnffic will be cxaccrbated by additional to and from Mall gcncratcd traffic. In ordcr to expedite access to thc Mall carly access w:ll be att~npted at the I-rtghway 79S/I-15 interchange using Front Street to the Santiago Overpass then Yncz Road to thc Mall, making reducing thc LOS (Loss Of 5crvicc) at Rancho Califonfia Road and Yncz to an unmitigablc LOS. 7. The City of Tem~eula Master Environmental-3ase~ment (IvlF..A) of Febm,~y 12, 1~2, ~ 11Z, indicate 10 intc~'s~fion~ and the ~rafii¢ r.~)~. ~ ofthe ALBERT S. PRATT 404?0 Brixton Cove Temecula CA 92591 (909) 699-8689 counts at ~ intn~ection hav~ boon ~tc~ded. Pag~ 115 of the (MEA) indicates 36 int~rscclions with AM and PM Pcak Hour (LOS). These (LOS) havc been cxcecdcd at ~ one of the 32 intersections. The (LOS) at W'mchester Road/Yncz Road is shown as 23.6 seconds (LOS C) during the AM Peak Hour and 2g.4 seconds (LOS D) during the PM Peak Hour. 8. On Monday June 23, 1997, at 4:19 PM the installed trafiSc signal at this intersec~n was pcrsonally timed by Albcrt $. Pratt and found to bc 1 minutc and 30 seconds. The N~hway Capacity Manu~ Transportation Research Board, 1985, (used for Reference in thc Old Town Center EIR), I.~-v~l of Service Criteria for Sigr~n~Ted Intmsecgons, LOS "F" is interpreted as "Total breakdown with stop=and-go operalions" and gives a delay ~ntcr than > 60 seconds. All of the mjor intcrscctions sc~cing the l:n'oposcd Forest City Mall win requir~ intersection LOS mitigation. An intcrsection LOS < (unacccptabl¢ lcvel of service) wfil bc dif!~cult to impossible to attain. The specter of accumulated LOS exists in east and west directions from thc W'mchester/Yncz intersection to the W'mchester Jefferson inten~ection and from the Rancho Califomia/Ynez intersection to the Pancho California Road/~cfferson/Front Strict intcmcc~ion. 10. Thc 'cnizcns of Tcmcc, d~,. Mun'icta and the "sphere of infiucnc~" should bc advised of increasing traffic congestion with thc attcnding "smog". 11. The Regional Specific Plan #263, Volume I, paragraph HI. A. (4): 1-15/W'mchester Road" ..... safe and efficient circulation system composed of a net work of planned local roadways designed for appropriate traffic and user needs". 12. Thc Rc~ional Specific Plan #263, Volume I, lVlif?tion Monitoring Progrant, paragraph L, Circulation, Lines 27, 28, 29 - does not address cxisting trat~c nor projected area traf~ - based on a rea~tic and current compounded traf~ growth ratc. 13. Tcmccuta Regional Center Draft Specific Plan #263, EIR 0340 - - - "lVlargati~ Road - will bc major acccss (4 Lancs) for majority of Tcmccula rcsidcnts south and cast of proposed Mall Thc Margarita Corridor, from Murricta Hot Springs Road to SR79S, serves at least 50%._of the population of Tcm¢c.ula including thc Vail Ranch and Rcdtmwk areas. ALBERT S. PRATT 404'/0 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92S91 (909) 699-8689 14. Thc Margarita Corridor has four (4) public schooh. Joan Spn,ttmnn Elemcnt,xry School, Ternccula Valley I-n~ School, Temecula Middle School and the Tcmecula Elementary School. A major proposed sporm park is planned adjacent to the Temecula Elementary School The Tcmecula Sports Park and Rccrcafion Ccntcr on Rancho Vista and ~ Road. Thc incre, as~ ~ scncralcd by thc Mall will incrcasc the hazards of traffic accidcnts to thc school c .hildrcn, and thosc participating in sports 15. General Kcarncy Road is indicated as major access to the Mall directly impacting all of the residents of the Mcadowvicw Subdivision. 16. Page 124 of thc (MEA), City of Temecula Capital hnpwvcment Program (1992-96), it is now 1997, includes 12 significant transportation improvements over the next five yca~. Of the 12 listed only 4 have been completed. 17. The City ofTemecula "Temecula Traffic News", ~Iunc, 1997. 'From the day the city was incorporated, traffic has been the major issue in Temecula, thereore the City has dedicated a major share of its resources to improving traffic circulation'. Of the 5 projects desc~ to improve the traffic congestion of Temecula only l, the Winchester Road Interchange has been complcted. From the ~-~R data available these improvements were based on Irafiic forecasts that are out dated and do not reflect the compounded traffic grOWth of the area. 18. Eventual completion if thcse fact'lifies without an updated traffic analysis w:dl do little to mitigate future tr'a~c congestion, cost taxpayers an immense amount of'money a portion of which might better be spent on traffic evalualion coupled with a v~,icw of the cost effectiveness of the proposed structures. 19. Substantial money (0ver $500,000) has been invested in the design of the Westom Bypass Corridor Phase L This first phase ~ fin'thor cxaccrbate the tra~c congestion at the Rancho C~i;fornia R~ad/I-15 Interchange and the intersections immediately to the east. No further work should be done until funding of the original Riverside County planned Western Bypass f~om 1-15 on the south to 1-15 to the northwest is complctcd and availablc. 20. The original l~.n~. c~_vcring this project uscd projected tra~c data based on an inaccurate compounded growth factor the traffic generated by this proposcd project and will furthcr cxaccrbatc traffic congestion caused by the proposed Forest City Mall. ALBERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 21. Rcc. cnt stagmcnts in the news media comment on the po-,,sibt~ty of a change in the Buffman/Fircstone/mis~llaneous investors Entertainment Project to be developed around a short portion of thc propos~ W~t~rn Bypa~. This short portion, ~nding at Rancho California Road, was not contcmpi*ted in the original concept of the ~id~ County C-cncral Plan for an artery to carry traffic "around" the City of Tcmcc,0, 22. I did not accept the 'nutigalion measures prepared for traffic control which wcre a part of the "Focused" F~IR for the Old Town Entertainmcnt Center as they were based on data that did not r~rcscnt the compoundcd annual traffic growth of Tcmectda, nor did it consider the "sph~r~ of Influence". 23. The further 'in city" development ofthe residential areas ofPaloma dcl Sol, Vail Ranch, and Red Hawk win compound the traffic congestion on SR 79S, and the many impacted. 24. The futur~ extensions of Yncz road to Murricta Hot Springs Road, and Diaz Road through to the City of Murietta. Prcscnt intersections that win suffer a major Loss Of Service (LOS) in the City of Murrieta ar~ Mmrgtmrim and Muraleta Hot Sprit~ Road, the Murrieta Hot S~ Roads off and on ramps at 1-215 and 1-15 and Murricta Hots Sl~ings Road at Jefferson 25. Major residential development of the SR79N corridor is now underway in the French Valley area. 26. The grdbur Smith and Associates Report Update of January 31, 1997 - a 10 year period of study focused on the immediate area around the Mall - W'mchcsgr - Serforson Avc.~ Road, Yncz Road = l~q~ta Road to Rancho California Road, Margarita Road - Winchester to Solana Way, Rancho California Road - from 1- 15 Interchange to Ynez Road. 27. The traffic projections are based on a compoundcd traffic growth ratc of 2%. My field checks at thc time of investigating thc EIR pro-pared for thc Bufiinan Entcrtainmcnt Ccntcr indicatcd 8.5%, an increase in the cornrounded rate of 425 %. Thc Wilbur Smith and Associates Report of January 31, 1997, is not bascd on cxisting conditions and, therefore, is ~t a valid forcoast or mitig,~ion of traffic congestion. ALBERT $. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (909) 699-8689 28. The NCHRP Report 255 is a recommended soure for post ~~ modeling results. "- - - that the use of unadjusted model volumes is bi_~hty discoS" 29. Consistency Guidelines for T~on Modebrig and Traffic Forecasling Riverside and San Bernardino Coumies, January 1995, Traffic Refinement and Rcfin~nent U.nin5 NCHRP Rclxxi 255 Proceeding. "However, great camion should bc used before peak hour forecasts arc rcponexL Wh~ malor new facilities have been added betw~"n the validation year and the forecast year, -='. :30. Further confirmation of a compounded U'afi/¢ growth can supported by the annual growth in population, voter registration, vehicle fees and number of vehicle Califomia State iicxns¢ plates. 31. The compounded population growth rate based on yearly population totals for the City of Tcrnecula fxom 1990 through 1996, as published in the 1995 1996, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) give a compounded annual growth rate of 8.5% > 2.0% in the above referenced W'fibur Smith Report. 32. The California DcparUnent of Finance has a compounde~ population growth rate for Ci~ of Tcmccula of 9.3%, 4.65 limes the projected tra~c growth rate of 2%. 33. During the one year pc'riM between the 1995 CAFR and the 1996 CAFR there was a 23.3% growth in the number of registered voters. 34. Southwest Ar~a Planning District (SWAPD) Travel For~ast Model P:dot, Phase 1 Area Model, Validation Report, July 18, 1996, Table 3, Trip P,.-aaigr~ment Validation is an analysis of tra~c congestion forecast for the year 2015. The following ar~as are NOT Within Tolerable Limits: 1. Jefferson Avenue (S/O Murrieta Hot Springs Road) 2. Jcffc~on Avenue (N/O W'mchestcr Rd.) 3. W'mchestcr Road (E/O Jefferson Ave.) 4. Winchester Road (E/O 1-15) 5. Benton Road (W/O Washington Road) 6. Benton Road ( E/O Winchester Rd. 7. Rancho California Road (E/O Margarita Road) 8. Clinton Keith Roa~ (E/O 1-215) _. 9. Murritca Hot Springs Road (E/O 1-215) 10. Rancho California Road (E/O 1-15) ALBERT $. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 11. Inim~te 15 (S/O SR 79 S) 12. Pala Road (S/O SR 79 S) 13. Murrieta Hot Sprln~ Road ((E/O Jeffm~rn Ave.) 14. Los Alamos road (E/O Jefferson Av~.) 15. Kalmia Road (W/O Jeff~on A~.) 16. Diaz Road (N/O Rancho Califom~ Rd.) 17. Jefferson Ave. (S/O/~ Dr.) 18. In~u~ 15 (N/O Rancho Califomia Rd.) 19. Yncz Road (S/O/W'mches~r Rd.) 20. Yncz Road (S/O/Solana Way) 21. Front Slrcct (S/O Rancho California Rd.) The above 21 locations indicate the forecasted areas of congestion for the year 2015. The impact of the proposed Forest City Mall brings a deterrent or 'traffic dam" to the compounded traffic growth in the T~necula/Murrke, a areas and the "sphere of infiw:ncc" requirm~ an humecl~tc cooperative effort to mitigate this problem. I do not concur with the conclusion of the Tcmecula City Staff and City Attomcy that the Preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (~.n~) for Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (*man project*) is not requhrA. Tlds referenced planning application triggers an of the ~h ~.arnstances requiring the p~'parafion of a subsequent EIR or supplement to the F~IR as s~t forth in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelincs Sections 15162 and 15163. Research on the Regional Sp~ci6c Plan #263, GCPA #231, CZ #5559 ~ and State Clearing House #89020013, indicates that the County Regional Plan EIR was received bythe SCH on 6/10/91 and Certified on 7/25/91. The 5-.year time on the original EIR would have lapsed after 7/25/96. No data was available for the City of Temecula under SCH #89020013. -Please furnish updated data to confirm the validity of the Environmental Impact Report (CEQA) and traffic addenda prepared By W'fibur Smith and Associates for the proposed Forest City Mall I am aware that the City of Temecula accepted the slams of RJvc~dc County documentation at the time of incorporation. My request is for subsequent F. IR documentation involving the approval of the proposed Forest City Man. There are endless comSinations of routes to the ~ from areas inside outside the city, but all affect our local area traffic congestion. ALBERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (9O9) 699-8689 We have no control over U'affic congestion on the Interstate and State I-li_ahways. We can plan to make trn'ffic life: bearable for Temccula 'cttizcns. We must work with our neighbors in the 'sphcr~ of influence". Wc must plan coopcraftily nowI. One might say that we have two choices, no Mail or a City and a 'sphere of influence' with some semblance of traffic commL I nu~dc an initial short nwicw of the 1994 EI]~ for ~c pro~,~ n~ ~ ~d~d f~ · c F~st Ci~ ~ ~d ~e le~ of ~b~ S~ ~d ~ ~&~ ~c ~c co~d ~ ~& No No~ of a ~c H~ ~ ~ r~~ ~ acc~ of ~c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d ~ ~d ~f~, ~ot bc ~d ~ p~ of ~c ~ ~d ~ ~c B~d C~~ ~ ~ ~c pro~ ~ ~ wMch ~e ~op~ ~ h ~ ~ d~l~d. I do not support thc conclusions. Howcvcr, I am in favor of the concept of the Forest civ Man. For your consi~on I sugg~ the following: 1. A moratorium on the issuance of all residential and aparlment building permits in the Ci6~s of Temco,in. Murrieta and the "sphere of influence" (conIroned by Riverside County) unlil a scparatc traffic study is complctcd (un~dablc by the cfiizcns, on how they will go from home to work. and rt~um with out being seriously impacted by trmcl;ic congestion generated by the Mall). Corridor. 3. A current traffic count at sclected intersections with the Mall traffic supciimposcd, and projected based on a compounded annual traffic count that reflects the c~t population, and traffic increase of the Tcmecula area. 4. Update based on new data'of the present and future LOS at all of the intersections impacted by the traffic gcncratcd by the proposcd Mall. This will affect the Mall traffic miligation as proposed by Wilbur Smith and Associates. Such modi~r._-n~ions, and reMsions will bc made concurrently with the constmclion of the Mall to bc in place at the completion of the 'tnit~ phasc. A minimum compounded annual traffic growth factor of 8%. Restore full buildc~mitigation fccs to allow maiimum funds for traffic mitigalion. ALBERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 (909) 699-8689 6. No further design or consmac, on on the b~,~ce of the smacmrca dcscn'bed in the City of Tcmccula 'Tcmecula Traffic News" until the cost cffcctiveness of thcs~ proposcd su-ucturcs is detcrmined by an updat~ Waffic analyais. 7. R~visiting thc C,~ncral Plan to considcr thc 1oag-mm cffccts of ~affic cong~on (with solutions) on thc quality oftifc of Tcmecula and to considcr ret~ -~g the rcsidcntial density of the city. S. A detailed interim Waff~ plan (with effective trki~ flow signing) a_,,,~o the fiu'ee year constmcfi~ phasc of th~ Finn:st City Mall allowing all lrzffic to cit,~adat~ ~ a minimum of congcstion and a Wlcrabl~ LOS. 9. In accordancc with CBQA an upda~ U'a~c 'nn~a~on plan wriecn in 'plain 10. Working jointly with the City ofMurti~ta, Rive~d~ County and ~:s~ . members of the 'sphcr~ ofinfiucnce' in the long-tcrm acceptance of the solution of The resolution of this problcm now, however oncrous, will e 'kminate citizcn discnchanuncnt at a later datc, and result in an acceptance of the Forest City Mail by the citiz_~ of Tcmecula Vall~ without a 'cloud of traffic congestion'. As a currcnfly P,.cgis~-r~d Civil E,..oinecr, State of California No.7697, I have the ~:chnical education, and cxp~i~n~ W su~ in comon with the City Slaff a plan W 'mfggaie to the satisfaction of thc ar~.a citizcns, thc specter of an arca awash in traffic, and bccoming Attachments: Bob Buster, Supcrvisor, District 1, Co~W of~ide ~yor of ~ Ci~ of M~c~ ~d M~ Ci~ Co~ ~~ M~cU PI~ R~ S~ - M~ Ci~ for R~blc ~ ~ - M~c~ ~ for R~ble ~o~ C~, ~ 8 - A~: Bob ~ W~t~ ~idc Co~ of ALBERT $. PRATT 40,~70 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 9:1591 (9o9) SCAG - Arm: l~chael Ainswor~ The Califonden The Press Entcrptisc, Temectfia/Murrieta Edition, Cad Lov~ Tim O'Lcary Thc Press En~prisc, Rh,'cr~dc Edition, Dan Bcrstein Thc l~ncho News ~presentative 'cifiz~m in {he "sphe, r~ of influence". Dr. David C. Robinson, D.O. David Micaheal - "The Vm,,~" City of T~-~ne~ula lee T~razas - Rainbow Canyon Villa~s City of Temecula 43200 I~a.~ne~ Par~ ~ · Ternecula. ~ 92590 · Iv~l~ncj,~¥e~: P.O. ~ 9033 · Ten~ecut~. CA 925~9-9033 19o9~ 69~6~,~ · F~ (~91 ~4-~ 999 June 9, 1997 Mr. Albert S. Pratt 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, Ca. 92591 LD97-0118DR The Regional Mall Project Dear Mr. Pratt: ~This le~er responds ~ yo~ re~ ~om ~ Ma~ew Fa~, ~cia~ P~er, re~ng cl~fi~fion on ~e vehicular ~o~ ~ of ~ ~r~nt ~r y~r ~ appli~ w ~e ~ffic a~lysis for ~e Re~o~l Ma~ ~roject. ~e ~o~ ~ ~c~r ~ ~n ~om ~e C~c~afion ~ement of ~e Ci~ ~ Temec~'s ~ Plan prepar~ by ~db~ S~ ~ciam. ~ ~ ~r~nt ~o~ m~ hc~r ~ dem~ ~m ~e ~S~ ~i~~c ~ ~ ~&em ~lifo~a ~ciafion of Gove~en~ (SCAG) plo~. ~e !a~r ~v indicated 7,675 wips ~ y~r 1~ a~ 11,582 ~ps ~ y~r 2010, a ~nW ~0) y~r eval~fion of ~e ar~ ~o~ w~ch de~v~ w a ~o ~r~nt hcwr. ~ , ,~glo ~ .... ~/~ ~~ ~ order ~ ~ ~n~ ~ SCAG e~fiom, ~e ~neral Plan doc~en~ ufili~d ~e ~me ~o~ factor. Hence ~e ~me ~o~ ~cwr ~ ~d for ~e Re~o~l Mall Project wa~c a~lysis. If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 694-6411. Sincerely, Associate Engineer cc: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner ~ Prlr~teC~ or1 ~e~=VC~L'C~ P,~g~' ~.\0ourkaze\llt\ 1997~0609a T~n~ula Planning Commission 43200 Business Park Drive Tcm¢cula, CA 92390 Subject: Planning Application No. PA97-0118 ~opm~t Plan) Applicant: For~t City Do~lopngng Inc. Tra~c conditions in thc City of Tomecub ar~ worscni~ a~ an accclcratcd ratc. Rcvi~ng the Environmental Imp~t Documents (EIR), and ~a~he, d lamr rq~orts prcparcd by W'gbur Smith and Associat~ furnished me ~ date at Tomecub City ?lanning Dcpamnc~ prcparcd by Mathew Fagan: It is my position that the documcnts do not sa~ address thc changed conditions dcvclopcd sincc thc initial BIR ~ for thc subject sitc dc~lopmcnt and Ccrfificd in 1994. Specifically, W'flbur Smith Report of June, 1997, received by the City of Temecula on April 17, 1997, Chapter IV - Projected Trn~c, Paragraph A. Traffic Forec~fing Methodology, Item (1)" ...... For purpose of this study, existing Wafiic h~,,'clling through the arce was adjmmd upward by an a3,'cr'dgc growth factor of two percent per year for a pcriod of thrcc years'. Please scca portion of the attached letter of April 23, 1996, indicating a compounded lraffic growth rate of 4 to 5 times the indicated I~.IR traffic growth rate of 2.1%. This data was bascd on a pcrsonal traffic count at sclccted localions correalmnding to the Banon- Aschman Traffic Report prcp~d for the Focused BIR for the Buffman Eatcrta/nment Projca. Much of thc data was taken at points outside of the arca of the Focused g. rR. Population growth of City of Temccula has grown at a compounded rate, to date, in cxccss of 8~Y,~ as shown by the population figur~ publishcd in the Comprchcmix, c Annual Financial Rcpon. The SWAPD Tra~l Forecast Model Pilot, Phase I Area Model, Val/d~,~on R~ort of July 18, 1996, indicatexl adjacent intersections as NOT within tolerable limits. Certain streets are projected to be continued tl~'ough to acceas Mturieta tra~c further compounding lx'afl~c congestion. It is a known fact that the 'extiz. ens of Temecula consider mitigation of tra~c congestion as our No. 1 problem. With compounded tra~c growth comes added air pollution. The data fuminhed me by the Planning Dcparuncnt did not ad&eaa the full mitigation of the traffic compounded by a greater pcrcent of tr',~c growth caused by population increases, and the addS_ traffic ~ the area residents accessing the Shopping Mall, thcrcforc, a $ubscqucnt or Supplcmental EIR must bc lm'eparcd. /t;.~ERT $. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cov~ T=rnccula, CA 92591 (9O9) 699-8689 Civil ~N~. ~ Fu~in~r No. ~0 The project contemplatexl in the original ~.IR was not ~ enough in scope to be applied to a now ~ly scoped project, ~he~'fore, a Subsequeat or Supplemental EIR must b~~ R~'sl~ctiv~ly submitted, 2 City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive · PO Box 9033 · Temecula · California 92S89-9033 (909) 694-6400 ·FAX (909) 694-6477 June 20, 1997 Mr. Albert S. Pratt 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 City of Tcmecula Res~ns~ to I.~ttm: to Plan·in· Commission dated June 2, 1997 l~ega,"~g hh¢ Prepa,~on of a Subst~lUent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Planning Application No. PA97-0118 ('mall project') Dear Mr. Pratt: Thank you for your letter to the Temecula Planning Commission dated June 2, 1997. In that letter, you stated that you believed a subsequent or supplemental ~rR should be prepared for Planning Apph'cafion No. PA97-0118 ('mall project'). Prior to this item being considered by the Commission, City Staff reviewed all available information and determined that neither a subsequent or supplemental FIR were necessary for the mall project. This determination was based upon the following factors: The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan ~IR anticipated the development of a regional mall and associated retail within its overall project scope. Staff conducted a new Initial Environmental Study for the mall project and determined impacts from the project were within the thresholds established under the previously certified glR. A truffle study was performed for the mall project and it concluded traffic generated by the project would be within the parameters examined in the previous traffic study performed for the project. From this information, Staff concluded the project was consistent with the Goals and Policies contained h'~ the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The Cal/fomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contain specific criteria as to when a subsequent or supplemental FIR are required. The conditions that might effect the requiements for an additional EIR are contained in Section 15162 (Subsequent EIR's) and 15163 (Supplement to an EIR) of the CEQA Guidelines. Based upon Staff's and the City Attorney's review of the CEQA Guidelines, these documents did not need to be prepared since the mall project was within the scope of the previously certified FaIR and therefore did not meet the conditions which might effect the requiements for a subsequent or supplemental FIR. R:',PLANNI~t~pRAT'T.ELLTR 6/20/97 mir 1 I hope this addre. ss~ your statement requesting a subsequent or supplemental EIR be prepared for the mall project. If you have any other comments, please contact Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner at (909) 694-6400. Sincerely, Ronald E. Bradley City Manager R:\PLANNING~PRATI'-EI.LTR 6/20/9r/mf 2 Civil bsm#rNo. ?6r; ALBERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Covo Tomo~ula, CA 92591 (909) 699-8689 c~ c~un~ City of Tom:oula 43174 Buainesa Park Subject: Old Town Rcdc~opmcnt Pwjcct ~e.~,! Impact Rcl~'t, Voinmc I and Voltmac 1I, of Dcccmbcr, 1994, SCH ~a.40T2039 - Prcpm~on ofa Supplcmcnt to the ~cntal Impact ~ CEQA, PRO Scion 1S1~3 and 1~1~. Atto: The Load Ascnoy - City of Tcmccala City Council: Mayor Lindcantata, Mayor Pro-tom Birdsall, CoLmoikncn Stone, Roberts and Ford This presentation for a supplcmontel Envimnmcntal Impact Report (EIR) is prcpar~ by Atbcrt S. Pratt in behalf ortho majority ofthe 'elKZOrn of Tcmccula who arc conccmcd about the quality of lifo of their City camed by the cxponcnfial incrcasc in uafiic volume which ~ll be f-m'ther ~ by the development of the proposed Old Town E~om Comor. Albert S. Pra~/s a Profcss/onal Engineer. Current $ta~ of Cal/fom/a Pwfess/onal Rcg/suations arc Civil K%-4-ccr, No.7697, issucd August 19, 1949, and $UucUnal E%~-eer, No. 650, mued April :3, 1953. Tm/Sc counts at selected locatiore, ~nd selected turning or through d/rect/om for compamon with ~ lXOjeCted U'afiic proj~ct/ons for 1996, were nude on the following dates and locations: 1. Friday, March 8, 1996, Noon/2:00PM fimc pcdod, Rancho Califom/a Road/Yncz west to 1-15, bdclge and north bound turn off. (This comer, approximately 300 feet west of 1-15 bridge, is impacted by all traffic from the west and w~s not included in the traffic survey by Barton-Aschman, and is the most congested corner in the Temecula Area) - West X-traffic 968 cars/hr. 2. ~ 8, 1996, Noon/2:00 PM time period, Rancho Californ/a Road at a point just west of I-l$ bridge - cast bound through WafiSc 1258 carat. March g, 1996, Noon/2:00PM t/me pcriocl, at a point 50 feet east of the north bound off ramp from 1-15 - east bound through traffic 1342 cars~. 4. March 8, 1996, 4:00PM/6:00PM (Weekday Eying Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes) time period, at a point 50 feet east of the north bound off ramp from 1-15 - cast bound through traffic 2021 can~. EIR Vol. I page 4-95, east bound through lr'afiic 1996 Total Weekday Evm~6n~ Peak-Hour Traf~ Volumc 1423 cars/hr. Our actrod count 2021/1423, an incrcasc of 142%. under I-15 brid~ resuicmt U'afiic volume) 5.. Wcdnesday, April 10, 1996, at 5:15 P.M. at point 50 fcct cast of 1-15 north bound off ramp, cast bound ltn-ough tra~: 1888 ~ + east bound I-15 off ramp un'ning u'affic 525 cars/hr for a total count of 2416 ca~/hr EIR 1996 Total Wc~k Day E~-n~ Pcak-Hoor Traffic Volrune 2038. Our actual count 2416/2038, ~n increa~ of 118 %. (This count wm ta~ken bccausc .the northbound I-15 off ramp Wafiic exuded on to the cast shoulder of 1-15, and cars wer~ delayed at the top of the ramp due to the through u'affic back up from the comer of Rancho California road and Yncz Road it was not possible for more cars to pass ~ point). The 12/94 I~.IR Secgon 4.6 Transpor~on/Cir~ulagon Section 4.6.1.2 Existing Traffic Volumes, thc BarUm-Aschnmn U'a~c count data were obtained from the C, en~ Plan BIR (August 1992) and the OTSP (January 1993). Traffic courrts wcre made by Banon-Aschnmn on Friday, May 20, 1994, 4:00PM to 6:00PM and on Saturday, May 21, 1994, 12:00 Noon to 2:00PM. This ~_,,-, was used for thc 1996 projcctcd traffic count at 10 idcn6f~cd hucrscctions pagc 4-75. The most congcsted im~scction, Rancho'California a/Yncz was not idengfied, and Samiago Road/Yncz was not identified, but with the planncd rcslrucmring this rm6dential corncr win havc tra~c from thr~c dir~tions impacted by the proposcd Project and the exponential growth of local Uafiic. ~.~R Section 4.6.2 Euvironmcnml impacts: Transpormi~C~on 1996. Projected 1996 u'affic was based on a 2.1% compounded backsround growth a,figure Banon-~c~ s~,.d was provid~ by the City (sc~ their ~cn! Vol H). We have not b¢cn ablc to asccrtain how titis 2.1% was determined, by whom or the method of collcc~ug u'affic data. At ~ point, April 23, 1996, there has bocn no Project commotion. Traffic mitigation in that pcriod has comistcd ofimprovmncnts at Winchcstcr Road out of the Project area. Existing traffic 'nutigagon construction is further delayed by allowing the Participant to widen and/or rcsUipc P, mcho California Road at the north ramps. The Par~icipam hm not ~ able to perform any of his financial obligatiom with r~ard to the ruination of Iraftic. Amendments have becn made in in the Owncr Participation ~ent (OPA) which benefit the Participant, but do not cxpedite the mitigation of the overall traffic problem. Addi6onal £actors afi~ecting thc mitigation of the Ira~c at the Key Intetmections in addition to the construction dcscribed in Phase I and Phasc H of the Project, are the proposed ¢omu'ucfon of two (2) 'Star Thcaters". Expected attendrace at fiu:sc two (2) facilitics is comparable to that cxpcctcd at the Opcra housc and approximatcs 500,000 persons a year or a projected total of 1,000,000 persons not considered in the traffic projections or mitigation mcasurcs. -. Our csgmation ofthc compounded growth of traffic volume, without the Project altcrnatc, is 4 to $ timcs thc compounded growth ratc reed by Barton-A~clunan, and fumish~ by thc Cily (2.1% compounded). Th~/s confirmcd by new ficld W~[~c counts by Albert S. Pra~, which '~s information of substantial importance (CQUA Scc~/on 1/i162 (a) (3) ~nd 1~1~3 ct seq. wh/ch w~s not known (ic. use of ~hc 2.1% compoundcd wafiic u'afiic cond/~ions m 1996 ~nd Bm'ld Out of~hc Project). MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: April 30, 1996 Albert S. Pratt Michael Ainsworth, SCAG Model Volume Data Request Find enclosed per your request Year 1990 and 2015 Average Daily Traffic model volume plots for the Temecula Area. Please be advised that use of unadjusted model volumes is highly discouraged. The NCHRP Report 255 is a recommended source for post processing modeling results. It also recommended that a professional traffic engineer post process model data. Please note that the Riverside-San Bernardino Area Comprehensive Transportation Plan Model is a regional model with added focus to the urbanized portions of the Inland Empire. This model is designed to produce travel demand projections for freeways and state highways. Currently SCAG is working with Western Riverside Council of Governments and the Southwest Area Cities to develop a model that will provide more accurate model results for local city streets. For your,,~~' information ~so e--n~ osed are photocopied pages from the document entitled, ~'Con.si..stency Guid..elines_~for Transpotation Modeling and Traffic Forecasting Riverside~nd San Bernardounties" dated January 1995. Th8 text should prove useful for a~ ,,,~d~l aata refinement effo~s. If there are any questions, please call at (909) 784-1513. .~, ~ ~ · . . ~"~k' · F:\wp51 doc\req uests\sprat~breq CONSISTENCY GUIDELINES FOR TRANSPORTATION MODELING AND TRAFFIC FORECASTING RIVERSIDE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES January 1995 CMP modeling network must contain, at a minimum, the SCAG System of Regional Significance contained in the Regional Mobility Element. Role of Local Cities: A city model, if consistent, can be a source of model data for local city facilities. Cities, developers and consultants analyzing the impact of a project on State roadways must obtain the State forecast and add or subtract changes in trips brought about by the project, as appropriate. The purpose of this is to create a set of forecasts that will be relatively consistent from project to project. Other Data Sources: For non-state highway facilities, both outside the RIVSAN CTP modeling area and for which no consistent city model exists, traditional non-modeling forecasting techniques should be applied. Traffic Refinement Travel demand forecasting models are abstractions. While they take into account many empirical factors associated with travel in the region, there are limitations in their ability to replicate traffic conditions on highways and transit systems. Outputs directly from a model ~r~. not 13edect reflections of reality, and the entire modeling process needs to be approached with an appreciation of the potential difficulties that can be encountered. In general, the more detailed the level of analysis, the more difficult it is to approximate traffic volumes that actually occur. For example, peak hour forecasts-~re much more difficult to achieve than daily forecasts. In order to generate peak hour volumes from the peak. period model'volumes a 38 and 28 p~rcent peak hour factor is recommended for use. Generally, model volumes when reported are rounded to the nearest whole number. When reporting model volumes forecasted link volumes should be rounded to the nearest 100 for peak hour and 1000 for average daily traffic (ADT) 24-hour forecast. Peak hour turning movements should be rounded to the nearest 10. The validation- year model run, .clround co,,nts and forecast year volumes need to be used together to generate the best possible forecasts. - A step sometimes left out of the traffic forecasting process is the refinement of model- produced traffic volumes. This is often a necessary step for subarea studies, particularly those requiring estimates of design traffic and intersection-level volumes. The following three options are suggested approaches for using model volumes and include: 1) 2) 3) Direct use of unrefined model data. Refinement of model volumes using NCHRP Report 255 procedures. Alternative refinement methodolgy to be approved by responsible review agency. 19 Some model applications may not require traffic refinements. For instance, many regional modeling applications focus on summary statistics for large geographic areas and analyze relative differences between transportation alternatives. In addition, properly developed city models and site impact models may produce accurate raw model volumes, requiring no further refinement. However, whether the model output is refined or unrefined, an analyst must review aJl resulting forecasts for "reasonableness" to insure accuracy of the forecast. Refinement Using NCHRP Report 255 Procedures: NCHRP ReDoft 255, documents appropriate procedures for refining traffic forecasts. Computer spreadsheet templates are available from SCAG for carrying out these procedures. Important applications of these procedures are the determination of design traffic for roadway improvements and pavement design and obtaining forecast turning movement volumes at intersections and interchanges. For the refinement of link volumes, the use of the absolute difference method is recommended, but not required. In this method, the difference between the validation year model output and the corresponding ground count is added or subtracted, as appropriate, to the future year forecast. Refinement should be conducted on 24-hour volumes, with peak hour factors and directional splits applied to derive peak hour volumes. Local models with particularly good peak hour modeling capab!lity may be able to provide peak hour forecasts directly for selected links or intersections. H,owever, .(:Ireat caution should be used h~fore pe~k hour forecasts are reported. Where major new facilities have been added between the validation year and forecast year. it~_ may be advisable to use a validation year assignm~'.rtt with the facility included as the basis for'-~--- calculating the model/ground count difference for the validation year. The refinement of turning. movement forecasts should start with refined approach volumes and use the NCHRP 255 methodology. In addition to providing methods to refine link volumes, NCHRP 255 also discusses approaches for producing turning movement forecasts, and determining peak hour percentages. The level of refinement needed for turning movements depends largely on the type of model used. Generally, turning movements from a regional model are less reliable than turning movements from a more detailed city model or site impact model. Peak hour percentages will vary geographically from area to area depending on the travel characteristics of the residents and the nature of the land uses. Alternative Refinement Methodology: Beyond the refinement methodologies recommended above, there may be other preferred methodologies. Different situations may require the use of a alternative methodology and therefore it is important to have flexibility when defining the approach to refining model volumes. Any alternative procedure will need to be approved by the responsible reviewing agency. Table 4.6-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONSO) Level of Service Interpretation Delay Uncongested operations; all vehicles dear in a single cycle. Uncongested operations; all vehicles clear in a single cycle. Light congestion; occasional backups on critical approaches Congestion on critical approaches, but intersection functional. Vehicles required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No long-standing lines formed. Severe congestion with some long-s~.nding lines on critical approaches. Blockage of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. Total breakdown with stop-and-go operations A B C D E F 0.0-5.0 5.1-15.0 15.1-25.0 25.1-~0.0 40.1-60.0 > 60.0 (1) Source: Highway C. apaciw Manual, Transportation Research Board, 1985. (2) Average stopped delay per vehicle in seconds for a 15-minute analysis period. 4-79 ' - '-' ~ $WAPD Tr-4vd Fo~:a~ Modal PI 1 Az~ V~lid~tioo Rapon ..jZ mLLI Q. Z E v) ~C ._~ · 0 0 0 ._o Z 33 ~ SWA.PD T~avel Fom:ast 1, .,el Phase 1 Area Va]iclatioo Report z 0 _ -r 0 Z E 0 0 e- Z ' : $WAPD Travel Fom:ast Mod~! Pi~ 1 Ar~a V:!i,~ti~ Report Z I-- Z Z 35 36 D. Traffic Conditions Estimated 1990 average daily traffic volumes are depicted in Figure Z Actual 1990 morning and evening peak-hour traffic volumes are included in the Technical Appendix. Information on 1990 traffe conditions was prepared using recent traffic counts obtained through field investigations, from Caltrans District 8, and from the Riverside County Road Department. Traffic counts were factored, where necessary, to estimate 1990 daily traffic volumes. To update available, counts, the following traffic, gro ,w~.h assumptions were applied: L¢'~i'P'"' o An increase of 10 percant per year ,..w~,.~. ap, plied to 1988 and earlier traffic counts available for 1-15. ...';'" ," - o An increase of 14.4.4.4.~_ereenT per y~ar wa~' ~pplied to 1989 traffic counts on local roadways. This traffic'growth assumption is significantly higher than the five percent average growth rate currently experienced in Riverside County, but reflects the higher than normal average traffic growth recenfiy experienced in the Temecula area. Peak-hour factors ranging from 10 to 12 percent were applied to recent peak- hour traffic counts to estimate 1990 daily traffic volumes where recent counts were not available. The evaluation of 1990 traffic volumes and roadway capacities in the project study area indicated: . \ 0 All existing roadway segments in the study area are currently operating at Level of Service C or better. Field observation of traffic conditions at the recently signalized 1-15 ramp intersections on Winchester Road indicate that these intersections are operating at service level "D" or better during the morning and evening peak periods. According to the ICU analysis, these interchange ramp intersections could operate at service level "C" or better if they were interconnected or synchronized. 12 Based on the results of the roadway segment Level of Service analysis, four roadway corridors are projected to have traffic operating service levels which fall below the minimum target Level Service D. These problem corridors are/dent/fled below. Winchester Road/State Route 79 (north): · from Interstate' 15 to Ynaz Road ('LOS · from Margarita Road to Nicolas Road (LOS 1=); and · from Date Street to Auld Road (LOS 1:] (within Sphere of Influence). 2. State Route 79 (south): · from Interstate 15 to Pals Road (LOS F). Margarita Road: · from Overland Drive to Solana Way (LOS F); and · from Rancho Way to Moraga Road (LOS Mumeta Hot Springs Road: · from Whitewood Road to Margarita Road (LOS F) (w/thin Area of Interest); and · from Margarita Road to Date Street (LOS E) (w/thin Area of Interest). It is important to note that it is likely that intersection~ located along roadways with projected Level of Service D would also be prone to peak period congestion problems. This is particularly a concern where the intersecting side streets are approaching their capacities (LOS D or worse). It is therefore likely that peak period intersection service levels at several interse&ions along Rancho California Road as well as other segments of the four problem corridors would also fall below the Level of Service D goal. Depicted in Figure 9b are intersections which would be prone to congestion problems during peak periods. The projected build-out traffic volumes also indicate that all of the current freeway interchanges (at Winchester Road, Rancho California Road, and State Route 79 (south)) would need to be reconstructed to accommodate additional crossing lanes and access ramp improvements. Definition of Draft Preferred Circulation Plan and Land Use Plan - The finding of the Circulation Plan development process was reviewed with City staff and elected City Officials to obtain direction on final refinements to identify the Draft Preferred Circulation Plan and Land Use Plan. The performance review of the final circulation system enhancements demonstrated that even with aggressive circulation network enhancements, a limited number of heavily travel corridors may still be subject to Build-Out operation conditions which fall short of the target service level of '~)" or better. Although it was generally agreed that the Winchester Road corridor congestion problem may be beyond the power of the City to solve on its own (due to uncontrollable outside development influence), it was also agreed by the City. that there may be some localized land use de-intensification opportunities which could further improve some of the remaining problem corridors. Following the strategy, a number of undeveloped land parcels were identified along the problem corridors and were targeted for de-intensification. These included several sites along the State Route 79 (s.~uth) and Pala Road corridors as well as a few remaining undeveloped sites along Rancho California Road. One site was also identified along Winchester Road. In terms of the previously identified and tested circulation system improvement options, all were maintained as part of the Draft Preferred Circulation plan except for the following deletions: · The extension of Enterprise Circle West to Cherry Street; · The upgrading of Hayes Street to a Major Street north of Elm Street; and · The extension of Pala Road north to ¥nez Road. These modifications resulted in the definition of the Draft Preferred Circulation Plan (illustrated in Figure 5) which is the focus of this traffic study. A more detailed description of the Draft Preferred Circulation Plan, including individual street classifications, is contained within Chapter IV. 10 * The realignment of Pujol Street/Felix Valdez Avenue and its extension north to align with Di~ Road at Rancho California Road. * The westerly extension of Overland Drive to connect into Avenida Alvarado. · The northerly extension of Enterprise Circle West to tie into Adams Avenue at Cherry .Street. · The addition of a two lane overpass of Interstate 15 at Elm Street. · The upgrading of Hayes Avenue (extension of the Western Corridor facility) to a Major Street. · The extension of Hunter Road west to ~/"nitewood Road (ACTS recommendation). · The addition of a new overpass of Interstate 215 just north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. · The addition of a new interchange on. Interstate 215 at Keller Road (ACq'S recommendation). Phase 3 Traffic Projections - This focused circulation system improvements included in Phase 3 of the development process improved the projected traffic operation on almost all roadway segments to Level of Service E or better. Within the study area, build-out traffic projections still resulted in Leve? of Service F on: · Winchester Road, from Margarita Road to Nicolas Road; · Winchester Road, from Date Street extension to Auld Road; · Murrieta Hot Springs Road, from just west of Margarita Road to Date Street; and · State Route 79 (south), from Interstate 15 to La Paz St. Level of Service E operation was still forecasted to occur on: · Winchester Road between Interstate 1.5 and Margarita Road; · Rancho California Road, from Interstate 15 to just east of Moraga Road; · State Route 79 (south) between La Paz Street and Pala Road; and · Margarita Road between Overland Drive and Moraga Road. 9 Some limited network enhancements/modifications were added within the City to reflect planned facilities such as the western corridor facility and various planned roads reflected in several Specific Plans which are currently being reviewed by the City (e.g. Temecula Regional Center, Winchester Hills, Campos Vetdes, and Murdy Ranch). Preliminary Traffic Forecast - Traffic generation for build-out of the preliminary draft land- use plan was assigned to the Base Network using the newly developed Temccula Circulation Element Traffic Model to test the adequacy of the roadway system. The initial traffic forecast revealed that build-out of the Civj, Sphere of Influence, Murrieta, and other land uses within Riverside County's Southwest Area would result in Level of Service E and F traffic operation on most principle Arterials and Major streets within the City. Phase 2 Land Use/Circulation Plan Modifications - The degree of traffic congestion suggested by the preliminary traffic forecast was clearly unacceptable and necessitated a re- evaluation of land use intensities (e.g. floor area ratios and net developable access) and a re-assessment of potential roadway ridstem improvements. Trip generation characteristics of the preliminary traffic forecast indicated a significant imbalance in trips being attracted by commercial and employment oriented land uses as compared to trips being produced by residential uses. This imbalance contributed significantly to the overall traffic volumes by attracting a large number of vehicle trips into the study area from points outside the Southwest Area. This over abundance of employment and commercial related land use is a characteristic of the Southwest Area Plan in general. ~2While it is beyond the City of Temecula's control to correc~ this imbalance outside its' jurisdictional boundaries, floor area ratio's within the City were carefully reviewed and reductions were made in all of the non-residential land use categories. In addition to reducing trip generation through land use modification, Wilbur Smith Associates met With Ciw. staff to discuss augmentation to the Base Roadway Network. Key network features which were added to the roadway network included: The extension of Rancho Way east from Diaz Road across Murrieta Creek and Interstate 15 to tie into Margarita Road. This improvement would require a grade separation at both Front Street and Interstate 15. The exxension of General Kearney Road from Margarita Road west to Ynez Road. 7 HOR'THW~$T I!~LLIENC~ Study Area City of Temecula General P~an Program Figure 2 IX. Ae Access to,he Winchester 1800 Specific Plan is focused to the proposed locations shown on Exhibit K and will be in compliance with ordinances 460 and 461. Tr-ff~c TmDac~s The proposed development is projected to generate approximately 113,190 t_rip-ends per day with 6,555 vehicles per hour during the AM peakhour and 11,200 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Project roadways should be aligned and sized as illustrated on Exhibit O0. The recommended roadway classifications are as follows: Roadway T.~nk Auld Road west of Washington Street Pourroy Road north of Auld Road Keller Road Thompson Road west of Washin, on Street Washington Street Winchester Road (State Route 79) DesSanat4on Secondary (88' ROW) Secondary (88' ROW) Secondary (88' ROW) Major (100' ROW)~ Arterial (110' ROW) Urban Arterial (134' ROW) As shown on existing Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element (see Exhibit H). 85 Rancho Bella Vista C. PUBLIC FACILITIES .~qD SERVICES ELEMENT ~) 1. Circulation The following discussion summarizes "RANCHO BELi.,~ VISTA ($P 184 Amendment 2) Buildout Traffic Stud5.' Report" (December 7, 1995) and Revised Trip Generation Analysis (July 17, 1996) prepared by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc. These reports are included in their entirety in Appendix D of this document. The RANCHO BELLA VISTA Specific Plan was originally adopted on December 31, 1985. This Specific Plan proposed a total of 2,580 dwelling units on 583 acres. The additional acreage was planned for a 13-acre Neighborhood Commercial center, a two-acre lake-oriented commercial area, a 15-acre school/park complex. a 34-acre lake, and 151 acres of natural open space. A traffic impact analysis of the original Specific Plan was conducted by Weston Pringle & Associates, the complete text of which is available in the offices of the Riverside County Planning Department. This traffic analysis determined that the project would generate 35,600 daily vehicle trips at build-out. On October 4, 1988, an amended version of the RANCHO BELLA VISTA Specific Plan (referred to in this section as Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 or SPA No. 1 ) was adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. This amendment reduced the total number of dwelling units from 2,580 to 2.571 and consequently, slightly reduced the volume of traffic to be generated by the RANCHO B£LLA VISTA project. SPA No. I also realigned roadways on-site to more closely conform to the topography of the site and to create more useable land use planning areas. The currently proposed Specific Plan Amendment (SPA No. 2) further reduces the residential land use intensity. of the project from 2,571 units to 1,998 units, a reduction of 573 units. In addition, the commercial land uses are eliminated. Due to the fact that SPA No. 2 is substantially different from the original Specific Plan and SPA No. l, the new traffic analysis and revised trip generation analysis by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc (December 7, 1995 and July 17, 1996) were prepared for this SEIR. According to the new gtudies, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment would generate 20,420 daily trips per day, a decrease of 15,180 nips per day compared to the original Specific Plan. Although neither SPA No. 1 or SPA No. 2 would cause any of the study area intersections to fall below an acceptable Level of Service (Level of Service "D"), the proposed project would result in the morning peak hour service improvement of one intersection (Winchester Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road) and the evening peak hour service improvement of three intersections (Sky Canyon Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Leon Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and Pourroy Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road) at project build-out. The precise assessment of project-related and cumulative traffic impacts has been derived from the subregional travel demand model currently being used for the City of Temecula. This model is commonly referred to as the Temecula General Plan Traffic Model. Forecasts for post-2015 conditions were determined using accepted procedures for mode forecast refining and smoothing. The Temecula General Plan Traffic Model currently uses project zones reflecting land use quantities for the approved RANCHO BELLA VIST.,, Specific Plan for post-2015 conditions. The land use changes proposed in SPA No. 2, include a reduction of residential uses by 573 units compared to the original Specific Plan. Specific Plan No. 184, Amendment No. 2/SEiR No. 401 V.C-1 Rancho Bella Vista v. a. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1) Existing Roadways The proposed project is located north. of Murrieta Hot SpHn~ Road and adjacent to Pourroy Road in an unincorporated portion of southwestern Riverside County (see Figure V-24, Tra2~c Analysis Study Area). Figure V-25, Existing Number of Through £anes and Intersection Controls, identifies the existing roadway conditions for study area roadways. The following paragraphs describe the existing roadways that are directly relevant to the RANCHO BELLA VISTA project. Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Murrieta Hot Springs Road is an east-west roadway that varies in size from two lanes to four lanes and alternates between being divided along four-lane sections of the road and undivided along portions of the road that are two or three lanes wide. Its intersections with Alta Mumeta Drive, Whitewood Road, and Winchester Road are controlled by traffic signals. Its intersections with Via Princessa, Calle del Iago, and Sky Canyon Drive are controlled by two-way stop signs. The Circulation Elements of both the Riverside County and City of Temecula General Plans (see Figure V-26, Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element and Figure V-27, City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element) designate Murrieta Hot Springs Road as an Arterial, with 110-foot right-of-way easterly of its extension from the Interstate 215 (I-215) freeway. Borel Road. Borel Road is an east-west roadway that extends east from Winchester Road as a two-lane undivided road. Its intersection with Wir, c. hester Road is controlled by two-way stop signs. Borel Road is classified as a Secondary Roadway (88-foot right-of-way) on the Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element and as a Major Roadway (100-foot right-of-way) on the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element (See Figures V-19 and V-20). Pourroy Road. Pourroy Road is a north-south roadway and is currently an unimproved dirt road which extends to its current terminus northeast of the project site. Although a dirt road, Pourroy Road's intersection with Benton Road is controlled by two-way stop signs. Pourroy Road is designed as a Secondary. Roadway (S8-foot right-of-way) north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road on both the Riverside County and City of Ternecula General Plan Circulation Elements (See Figures V-I 9 and V-20). Winchester Road. Winchester Road, also known as State Route 79, is a north-south, two-lane undivided road. It is currently being widened between Auld Road and Margarita Road. Winchester Road is coreroiled by a traffic signal at its intersection with Murrieta Hot Springs Road and two-way stop signs at its intersections with Borel Road/Hunter Road, Auld Road, Benton Road, Thompson Road, and Leon Road. Winchester Road is classified as a restricted access Urban Arterial (134-foot right-of-way) on the Riverside County, City of Temecula. and City of Murrieta General ?lan Circulation Elements (see Figures V-26, V-27, and Figure V-28, City of Murrieta General Plan Circulation Element) along its entire length. Interstates 15 ('I-15) and 215 (1-215). I-15 and 1-215 are major north-south freeways for the western portion of Riverside County. I-15 and I-215 are located 4.2 and 3.6 miles away, respectively, from the project site. Both I-I 5 and 1-215 would serve as the principal interregional connections between the RANCHO BELLA VISTA project and destinations in Riverside, Orange, San Bernardino, and Los Angeles Counties. Access from the project site to-I-15 and I-215 would be provided via Murrieta Hot Springs Road. These freeways currently experience some congestion at peak hours. Specific Plan No. 184, Amendment No. 2/SEIR No. 401 V.C-2 - PROJECT SITE Rancho Bella Vista JM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. 18400 Von Karrnan, Suite 900, Irvine CA 92715 Figure V-24 TRA.FF/C A.NA l .YSIS STUDY AREA V.C-3 I I I I I I I I I ! r r r ~ \.~,~~. . . -~ ~ ~ - -- PRO~ S~ LEGEND: R_KJK -, TRAF~C S~GNAL -- ALL WAY ~rOP -r - STOP ~ - NUMBER OF' D ,,. DIVIDED U = UNDIVIDED Rancho Bella Vista-- JM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. 18400 Von garman, Suite 900, Irvine CA 92715 Figure V-25 EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS V.C4 I ~..i(l.~ Ranc/~0 Bella l~ista-. ~E _~v_~o~ co~,~,~, ~Nc. ~O0 Von Karrnan, Suite 900, Irvine CA 92715 I F~gure V-26 P-~~$~DE COUNT~ GENERAL PLAN CIRCULAT/ON ELEMENT V.C-5 Rancho B~lla V~sta JM 'DEVELOPMEKT COMPANy, INc. 18400 Von Karman, Suite 900, Irvine CA 9271,5 Figure V-27 CITY OF TEIVIECULA GENERAL PLAN CULAT/ON ELEMENT V.C-6 LEGEND: c~n!lIl~ / i~l~ i%~ll. tl~ m a n · m m a ~ ~1~ Rancho Bella Vista d'lV[ DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. 18400 Von gan'nan, Suite 9C)C), Irvine CA 92715 Figure V-28 CITY OF MURRIETA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT V.C-7 ~T.,TER_17ATE LAND UBE/NETWORK BCEN]~IO As a strategy for addressing future circulation deficiencies in the Southwest Area Community Plan, two fundamental approaches are recommended: (1) focusing on the most traveled corridors to accommodate high traffic flows on standard lanes and with future options such as fixed rail or high occupancy vehicles, and (2) balancing trip productions and attractions through coordinated land use planning efforts within contiguous growth areas. Land Use Modifications The model forecast results presented in the preceding report section illustrated the roadway volumes which are projected for the Airport Community Transportation Study (ACTS) specific plan projects. These projects have proposed land use plans which modify the approved Southwest Area Community Plan, and have proposed a roadway network which modifies the current Riverside County General Plan Circulation Element. The conclusions of the model forecast were that most roadway segments which were found to be operating over capacity for the SWAP buildout scenarios will continue to exceed capacity, and that additional roadway segments will not be caused to exceed capacity due to the proposed ACTS projects. The modified roadway network proposed by the ACTS projects results in a different distribution of traffic as compared to the General Plan Circulation Element network causing volume to capacity ratios on some roadways to decrease while other roadways increase. Although the modified roadway network serves the ACTS projects better than the General Plan Circulation network, a number of roadways in the area of the ACTS projects are projected to operate above capacity. To mitigate this situation, it was recommended to 58 ,7 ?"r? ~ ,'3 'Road rage' gets attention of Congress · A House panel is told anger is a cause in 28,000 highway deaths a year. By Stephen J. Siegel $pecwJ to the Press-Enterprise WASHINGTON More ~ 10 ye~ ~er ~ated freeway shootin~ fi~t terrorzeal ~uthe~ ~111o~m ff~ways, Con~ h~ decided ~at an~ drive~ are a prying p~biem. Mem~ of ~e Ho~ surface t~- potration subcommittee were told Thudday that ~r~lve belabor -- like mildting, weaving throu~ b~ lan~, honing or sc~ing at o~er d~ve~, exchang~ of i~ul~ ~d even gunfire -- is a factor in nearly 28,~0 hi. way dea~ a year, And ~e problem ~ ~tting wo~, ~id Ricardo Maffin~, head of ~e National Hi. way Traffic ~fe~ Ad- ruination. But lawmake~ were divid~ on whe~er ~e mlution ii~ in more r~d coercion or ~eater effo~ to con- trol ~e beha~or' of motorS. ~ng a hea~ng ~u~ay, comet- tee mem~ ~galed o~er lawm~e~, re~e~ and wim~ ~ ~ ~ of Piece see RAGE, Ba~ge A.~ · Friday, July IS, I997 · W~. P~a~-E~gm,ms~ RAGE Continued from A- .dg!ving mayhem from their home states. . Retb~teve Horn, R-Long Beac:.~. told the panel that simply drivit~ ~.the airport was a riskyendeavm. ' "I'm from Southern California. where we see this every day." Horn said. "We take our lives in our l~ands just to get to Los Angel~ "Others recounted horror stones from their districls and examined rising statistics on incidents in the Washington area. · Pep. Bud $huster, R-Pa. chairman of the House Transporta- tion Committee, told the hearing that the chief cause of this "road rase" is tra~c congestion. "There are many ways to im- prove safety on our highways," Shuster said. '~Tbe construction of additional lanes, the widening roads, and the straightening of curves would decrease congestion and reduce the impatience and unsafe habits of some motorists." · But Pep. Earl Blumenauer, D- Om., took exception to Shuster's contention that the condition of the highways is to blame for anti-social belmvior. He said that, while "many peo- pie. believe that these aggressive drivers have a right to be angw." the real issue is a failure to de- mand personal responsibility from ~ose motorists. .: It'!s suggested that, "as the roads become more and more congested, tempers become ~orier," Blu- raeaauer said. "But according to tlie" Department of Transporta- tibn's highway statistics, congestion i~i urban areas actually peaked in ll~91 -- years ahead of this rash of a~r_ elsire driving incidents." , Instead, Blumenauer said soci- ety needs to demand a higher level o/ behavior from drivers, rather ~an blame congested freeways. .."We could build more, wider ~ in an attempt to control drivers' tempers,'~ lie said, "but t!lars the equivalent of giving wife- beaters more room to swinE. We ~ust raise our expectations for people's behavior, not make it eitsier for them to act out with impunity." -~arunez, a ire'met emergency i room sure'on, stud ~e b~ Wot ~" * ~m dfive~ w~ a police car m ~e ~ vtew mi~r. ~e to~ t~e: ~~ mat mo~ ~na~ ~': ~er ~u~Oo- ~aw entorce' merit, ~d approp~ate puma. h- merit. "New 1~ ~ould ~ but we out of ~$ prohie . Ma~mez en~ wi~ edUCat~o~ taw e~orc~ .,-..n~ra, a ~Y- ~olo~ from Whi~er, ~at ~ s~eY o[ 585 ~ve~ to~& ~at 53 ~rcenL oi driVe~. ~d ,'wad ~ge d~rder," wBich ~e d~fi~ ~ one driver's clear- tn ~er to anomer 'e ~ g l~ ~ce a year. ~e m~ ~p~e havt~ ~t dren oi d~ve~ w~o a~ ~ ~bte. he ~id. but ,Toad r~e~ m~ro~em ~at ~ey have u · .,p~p~e need to ~Y u, ~lv~, Ws j~t not wo~ it." New Yor~ Times :q th~ repo'- C~f~a Regi~r~ion: Civil Engineer No. 7697 ~lrucmml Engin~-lle. 650 AI,RERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Covo Tcm¢cula, CA 92591 (Emaih sampratt(~alphainfo. corn) (909) 699-8689 RECEIVED JUL 21 1997 Monday, July 21, 1997 Mrs. June Greek City Clerk Temecula City Council City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Tcmccula, CA 92590 (909) 694-6a.~.d FAX (9o9) 694- t 999 Subject: Appeal - Planning Commission's Action of July 7, 1997 on Albert S. Pratt Petilion for a Subsequent or Supplem~tal Environmental Impact Report on PA97-0118 Please repln~ page I and page 2 wilfi the ntl~hed corrected png~. Page 1 was corrected: PA_97-0188 was changed to PA97-0118 in the 3r~ line of the 2'~ paragraph. And PA96-0018 was changed to PA97-0118 in the 3r~ line of the 3r" paragraph. Page 2 was corrected: the word '~not" was removed from "- - - - is not erroneous - - ", changed to "i~ erroneous" in the 5~ line of the 6~ paragraph. /'l~he clanged pages_are attached. ALBERT S. PRATT 40470 Brixton Cove Tcmecula, CA 92591 (Email: sampratt4~ alphainfo.corn) (909) 699-8699 Civil Engineer/go. 7697 Structural F. agiueer No. 650 Monday, July 21, 1997 Mrs. June C,-rcck City Cl~rk Temccula City Council City of T~necula 43200 Business Park Driv~ Tem¢cula, CA 92590 (909) 694-6444 FAX (909)694-1999 Subject: Appeal - Planning Commission's Action of July 7, 1997 on Albert S. Pratt Petition for a Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report on PA97-0118 A check in the amount of $351.00 payable to the City of Temecula (attached) for submission of Appeal to the Decision of the Planning Commission Case No. PA97- 0118, in accordance with Development Code Section 17.03.090 Development Code Section 17.03.090 (f) Notice of Appeal - Contents (1) a. The specific decision appealed from: Approval of Planning Application No. PA97- 0118 (Development Plan), Applicant Forest City Development, Inc. (1)b. The specific grounds of the appeal: Environmental Impact Report No. 340 supporting Specific Plan No 263, violates the California Environm~tal Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21166 (b) and (c), CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163, by failure to Provide a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR addressing the Traffic Impact as a result of the Forest City Mall Development on the City of Temecula and "the sphere of Influence" resulting from substantial changes occurring with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report. New Information, which was not known and could not have I~en known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete has become available. (1) c. The relief or action sought from the City Council: Direct the City Staff to Provide a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR addressing the Traffic Impact as a result of the Forest City Mall Development in fight of the new accurate data now available. Please see also attached forms provided by the Planning Commission substantially confuming the above statements. ALBERT S. PRATr 40470 Brixton Cow Temecula, CA 92591 (Emaii: sampratl~ alphainfo.corn) (909) 699-8689 California 1Le~m'etion: Civil ~7%~neer No. 7697 ~ ~ No. 650 The Council is to be advised that the citizens who support the request for an updated traffic study based on existing and recent past - since the inception of the City of Temecula - traffic volume congestion - find that the present conditions are intolerable. The small business retailing community will suffer economically. This will result in vacancies, and the attending reduction in commercial property values. A full assessment of the region's traffic congestion and a response plan is mandatory prior to the approval of any additional traffic-generating development, including the Forest City Mall. See The Press-Enterprise, Temecula-Murrieta Edition, Friday July 18, 1997," 'Road Rage" gets attention of Congress". A House panel is told "anger is a cause of 28,000 highway deaths a year". (a copy of this article is attached, Item 28). The eventual cost of traffic mitigation if the present traffic congestion plan is not updated can be many times the revenue received by the City of Tcmecula. Knowing the estimated cost of mitigation now can result in millions of dollars in savings to the taxpayer. The Wilbur Smith and Associates Study, and public statements before the Temecula Planning Commission by the traffic engineer of the Developer of the Forest City Mall erroneously forecast a mitigated traffic situation at "build out" of the City of Temecula General Plan, and traffic mitigation in the vicinity of the Mall upon completion of the Overland Bridge, and Rancho California/I-15 Intersection bridgc widening and ramp construction. The actual annual compounded traffic growth rate is in excess of 8%. This in sharp contrast to the lower assigned rate (2°/6) previously noted, and completely negates the traffic mitigation in the vicinity of the proposed Forest City Mall, and with the proposed area wide projects, ie: Dominogoni Reservoir, 1800 Winchester Housing Project, Bella Vista Homing Project the Wilbur Smith and Associates ~affic analysis is erroneous for the City of Temecula even without the construction of the proposed Forest City Mall. An immediate analysis of the traffic congestion is required to be furnished to the citizens in "plain understandable language". This should also be a concern to the develooers of the Forest City Mall. If the traffic becomes too congested customers will find other areas to shop after thc initial euphoria. The City of Temccula must appraise the merit of this Appeal and take the appropriate action of preparing a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. It is mandatory that the City Council direct the City Staff to investigatc the current and future traffic congestion of the ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 2, 1997 R:\FORMS\$TAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 klb 27 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CiTY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION ORIGINAL June 2, 1997 Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: MAKE a Determination of Consistency With a Project for Which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Previously Certified and Findings that a Subsequent EIR is not required; ADOPT Resolution No. 97- approving Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Mall and Power Center Site Plan, Mall and Power Center Elevations, Mall and Power Center Landscape Plan, Mall and Power Center Color and Material Boards; Robinsons-May Site/Landscape Plan, Robinsons-May Elevations and Robinsons-May Color and Material Board) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; PROVIDE direction to Staff regarding the elevations, colors and materials and landscape plan of the Sears Department Store and Auto Service Store for Planning Application No. PA97-0118; and PROVIDF direction to Staff regarding the "special treatment" at the corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Forest City Development, Inc. Robinsons-May Department Store Sears Department Store REPRESENTATIVE: KA Architects Amato/Reed Associates (Robinsons-May) Architects Pacifica LTD (Sears) PROPOSAL: The design and construction of a 1,019,846 square foot regional mall, a 403,000 square foot power center (retail), a 80,000 square foot cinema and 235,000 square feet of future retail space on 133.5 acres R:\STAFFRPT~llgPA97.PC1 5/28/9"/mf I LOCATION: South of Winchester Road, east of Ynez Road, west of Margarita Road and north of the future extension of Overland Road GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (Community Commercial), PI (Public/Institutional Facilities) and PO (Professional Office) EXISTING ZONING: SP (Specific Plan No. 263 - Regional Center Specific Plan) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: CC (Community Commercial) BP (Business Park) SP (Specific Plan No. 1 - Campos Verdes Specific Plan) CC (Community Commercial) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Commercial development - Costco Center/vacant Vacant Vacant Commercial development (Palm Plaza) PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: 133.5 acres Total Site Area: 1,737,846 square feet Mall Building Area: 1,019,846 square feet Power Center Building Area: 403,000 square feet Cinema Building Area: 80,000 square feet Potential Peripheral Parcel Building Area: 235,000 square feet Parking Required: 6,904 parking spaces Parking Provided: 7,334 parking spaces BACKGROUND Forest City Development entered into a Development Agreement with the City of Temecula on December 16, 1997 for the development of a regional mall and power center in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan area. Subsequent to this Development Agreement, the applicant provided preliminary development plans for the mall component of the project. Staff reviewed these plans and provided comments to the applicant. In addition, a Planning Commission workshop was held on April 7, 1997 to discuss the preliminary plans. The Commission provided direction to the applicant in the following areas: aesthetics, landscaping, interface of the mall with the existing residences to the east, and interface of the power center with Margarita Road and the existing residences to the east. R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PCI 5/28/97 tnf 2 The project was formally submitted to the Planning Department on April 17, 1997. This submittal included detailed site plans, landscape plans and elevations for Robinsons-May and Sears Department Stores as well as exhibits for the mall component. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on May 8, 1997. In addition to reviewing the project to determine if Staff's concerns were addressed, Staff reviewed the plans at the DRC stage to assure the applicant addressed the concerns raised by the Planning Commission at their April 7, 1997 Workshop. The majority of the Commission's concerns were addressed by the applicant at this stage. The concerns which were not addressed: Sears Department Store and Auto Service Center elevations and landscape plan, and community design feature at the intersection of Winchester and Ynez Roads. These are before the Commission for direction at this time. Other concerns have been addressed through conditions of approval for the project. The project was deemed complete on May 19, 1997. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project components which are before the Planning Commission for their consideration are: the mall and power center site plan, mall and power center elevations, mall and power center landscape plan, mall and power center color and material boards, Robinsons-May site/landscape plan, Robinsons-May elevations and Robinsons-May color and material board. Several perimeter development envelopes are also identified on the site plan. ANALYSIS Mall Site Plan and Elevations Elevations have been provided for the mall shops and mall entries. The colors and materials used for the mall shops are compatible with surrounding development and the Temecula region in general. The mall entries provide a focal point and sense of entry to the mall. Power Center Site Plan and Elevations The Power Center is located on the eastern portion of the project site. Access to the Power Center will be from both Winchester and Margarita Roads and the mall ring road. The rear of Major Retail buildings A-E will face Margarita Road. Staff has directed the applicant to adequately screen the rear of these buildings which includes the loading areas. The applicant has provided a section and plan along Margarita Road which shows how the rear of the buildings will be screened. In addition, the rear of the buildings have been articulated in a manner similar to the front of the buildings. Elevations utilize similar colors and materials used on the mall project. The facades of the buildings have been broken up through the use of entry features, varied roof heights, landscaping and some trellises. Gathering areas are provided within the Power Center. Amenities envisioned in these areas include: trellises, enhanced landscaping and sheltered seating areas. Future Elevations There are several components of the mall project which Staff has not received elevations for at this time. These include the cinemas, JC Penney's, Anchor No. 4, the Entertainment Plaza, and the area identified as "50,000 retail" on the site plan. A condition of approval has been included for the project which requires future elevations of these components to use architectural elements which are found on the mall. These architectural elements include, but R:\STANlVRPT~llSPAFT.PCI 5/28/97 mf 3 are not limited to: colors, materials, cornices and roofing materials. The condition of approval further stipulates that these future elevations will return to Planning Commission for approval. Develol~ment of Outlots. Pads and Other M~jor Retail The applicant has identified potential building envelopes for the outlots and potential square footage for pads and major retail tenants. Since the applicant has no definitive plans at this time, a condition of approval has been added to the project which requires the applicant to submit a design manual for approval by the Planning Commission. The purpose of the design manual is to enumerate the design elements which are appropriate for the development., Plans submitted for future development will utilize the design manual for design parameters. Ultimately, the Community Development Director shall have the authority to approve any development which is consistent with the Design Manual without a public hearing. If the Director determines the project is not consistent with the Design Guidelines, or that the project would require a Conditional Use Permit according to the provisions of Specific Plan No. 263, the matter would be set for a Planning Commission hearing. Traffic Traffic was analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 340) for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan (SP No. 263). The 1993 EIR indicated that, based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Circulation and Traffic have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-117). Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. 1 concurrently with SP No. 263. These impacts will be lessened by adherence to the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. The City Council addressed this unavoidable impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. The 1994 Addendum EIR further elaborated upon the impacts from the project and additional/revised Mitigation Measures were required. A subsequent Traffic Study was submitted for the project (dated May 9, 1997) and reviewed by Staff. Staff required the applicant to provide an analysis which would determine if the project (as proposed) was consistent with the previous analysis performed for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The Study concludes project trip generation falls within the Specific Plan totals included in the EIR Traffic Study. The Study further states: "while the proposed land use is consistent with the Specific Plan designations, it is evident that the proposed project trip generation would account for a somewhat higher pro-rated share of the total Specific Plan trip generation for the p.m. peak-hour (4,428 weekday evening peak hour trips versus 4,213 weekday evening peak hour trips) than originally conceived in the Specific Plan." The Study lastly states: "This issue should be re-evaluated as specific development proposals are defined for the remaining portion of the site." A traffic analysis will be required for subsequent development within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan area, not covered under the current project description above (the remainder of the property not developed by Forest City Development, Inc.). If these projects are under the threshold established by the original EIR Traffic Study (less those impacts identified under the Forest City Development Project) then a consistency finding may be made for these projects. If the future projects exceed this threshold, then subsequent environmental analysis may be required. R:\STAFFRFl~I18PA97.PC1 5/28/97 mf 4 On-Site Circulation The project will initially take access from Winchester, Ynez and Margarita Roads. Ultimately, the project will also be accessible from the future extension of Overland Drive. Two (2) major entries and three (3) minor entries are proposed on Winchester Road. Two (2) major entries are proposed on Ynez Road. One (1) major entry and two (2) minor entries are proposed on Margarita Road. Additional right turn lanes are proposed into the major entries on Winchester Road and at the northernmost major entry on Ynez Road. A central "ring road" will encompass the mall and will provide access to the power center and perimeter lots (outlots). A condition of approval is included for the project which limits the number of access points to the ring road from the outlots to one (1) per lot. In accordance with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) recommendations, bus turnouts have been provided on Winchester Road and Ynez Road. At the request of Staff, the applicant has provided a bus turnout on-site, which will be located on the ring road, behind Major Retail buildings G and H. Project Phasing A site plan for initial development has been included in the Planning Commission's exhibits. In this initial phase of development, the applicant anticipates construction of three (3) department stores, the power center, the mall shops, the Cinema/Entertainment area, the 50,000 square foot retail area, as well as, internal roadway improvements. City of Temecula Improvements Pursuant to the Development Agreement between Forest City Development, Inc. and the City of Temecula on December 16, 1997, the City shall design, construct, install and maintain the perimeter road improvements to Winchester Road, Ynez Road, Margarita Road (Winchester to Solana) and Overland Drive (between Ynez Road and Margarita Road). In addition, the City will construct new or remodel existing traffic signals, underground overhead power and communications lines on the south side of Winchester Road from Ynez Road to Margarita Road and construct regional storm drainage facilities. Landscaping The applicant has submitted a landscape plan for the entire project as well as landscape enlargements for major and minor entries, the mall entries, Winchester, Ynez and Margarita Road, typical landscape islands and the entertainment plaza. These plans have been reviewed by Staff at the Pre-application and DRC stages. The Planning Commission also saw these plans at their April 7, 1997 workshop. A Committee consisting of Commissioner Miller, the City's Landscape Architect and Staff met prior to the May 8, 1997 DRC meeting to generate comments on these plans. Comments ranged from plant size and species recommendations, to requests for additional information. Staff provided the Committee's comments to Forest City Development, Inc., Robinsons-May, and Sears at the DRC meeting. The landscape plan has been coordinated with the site plan and sidewalk plan and the appropriate tree choices have been used along the sidewalks. In addition, the applicant has provided a section and plan for the area along Margarita Road which shows how the rear of the Power Center will be screened. R:\STAFFRP~llSPA9'7.PC1 5/28197 mf 5 Staff reviewed the re-submittals to determine if the comments had been addressed on the plans which are currently before the Planning Commission and has determined the fifty percent shading requirement for parking stalls has not been met on these plans. A Condition of Approval has been added to the project which reads: "Per the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, a 50% minimum average actual parking stall (space) area shall be shaded. The applicant shall submit landscape plans to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval which reflect this requirement prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Mall or Power Center component of the project, whichever comes first." Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the mall and power center, construction landscape and irrigation plans (minimum 1" = 50' scale) are required to be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans will include all major and minor entry features and monumentation and the corner landscape and monumentation features (Winchester and Ynez Roads and Winchester and Margarita Roads). In addition, detailed landscape and irrigation plans will be required for the Robinsons-May, Sears, the Sears Auto Service Center, Anchor Number 3 and Anchor Number 4, the Cinema, and the area identified as "future 50,000 square feet retail," and the outlots. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for either the plaza area, the cinema or the area identified on Exhibit D as "Entertainment Plaza Retail" (whichever comes first), a detailed site plan and detailed landscape and irrigation plan (1"=20' scale) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval. Recommended amenities for the plaza area include: planter boxes w/trees and seating area, benches, stage area, tables, chairs, shade structures to include trellises w/vines & misters, shaded turf open space, awnings, shaded seating areas, street lamps, trash receptacles, a fountain/water feature, art/sculptures, a variety of color, hanging plants, seasonal color (plantings), decorative bollards, enhanced paving areas, archways/gateways, outdoor movie screen, a gazebo, outdoor vendor carts, heaters, fans, and clock(s). Staff is requesting the Planning Commission provide direction regarding the special treatment at the corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads, as well as on the landscape plans for the Sears Department and Sears Auto Service Center (discussed below). Signs Potential locations for signs have been identified on the site plan. These locations are conceptual at this time. A condition of approval has been included for the project which requires a comprehensive sign program be approved by the Planning Manager prior to the Issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. The sign program will address appropriate sign colors, materials, heights and locations for all signage (wall-mounted, monument and directional). Sidewalk Plan A sidewalk plan has been prepared for the project. This plan depicts pedestrian routes of travel throughout the project and connects all of the components of the project. Pedestrian access has been included from Winchester, Ynez and Margarita Roads. In addition, provisions have been made for pedestrian linkages from North General Kearny Road, the future connection to Overland Road and the proposed bus turnouts. The Sidewalk Plan has been coordinated with the Landscape Plan and trees are utilized adjacent to the sidewalks which will provide a R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PC1 5128197 mf 6 pleasant walking environment. Robinsons-May Elevations and Site Plan Staff is pleased with the elevations submitted for the Robinsons-May Department store. The massing of the building has been broken up through the use of reveals and a variety of roof heights. The entries have been well articulated. The use of landscaping also serves to break up the massing of the building and enhances the overall quality of the building. Robinsons-May is responsible for all improvements from the back of the curb and these are reflected on the site/landscape plan. Seating areas have been included at all store entrances. A bike rack is located at the southern (upper level) entrance. Other bike racks will be located at the mall entrances. The signage shown on the building is also part of this application and is before the Commission for approval. The signage as proposed is consistent with the criteria contained within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads Since the pre-application stage of this project, Staff has informed the applicant that the corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads needs to be treated in a special manner. Staff felt this was not achieved at the DRC stage, and requested the applicant re-visit the design. Staff directed the applicant to re-submit a plan and section for this corner which was more elaborate and detailed. Specific recommendations included, but were not limited to: a water feature, a people friendly space and art. The purpose would be to create a major focal point which could help generate a sense of excitement. Staff stated that the currently proposed design would be more appropriate as the secondary monument at the intersection of Winchester and Margarita. Since this issue has not been fully addressed on the plans which are before the Planning Commission, Staff is requesting the Planning Commission review the plans and provide direction to Staff regarding this matter at the June 2, 1997 Public Hearing. Sears Department Store and Auto Service Center Elevations At the May 8, 1997 Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting Staff raised concerns regarding the architectural style of the Sears Department Store and Sears Auto Center (Auto Center) buildings. Staff felt the buildings did not reflect the architectural elements used on the Mall and Robinsons-May and directed the architect for the project to use similar architectural elements (i.e., cornices, varied roof line, etc.). Staff felt these elements would help make these buildings more compatible with the overall mall project. Staff also directed the architect to reduce the area of the blue stripe on the Auto Center building to match the storefront area and incorporate other elements from the main building onto the Auto Center building (i.e., reveals, architectural, etc.). It was further recommended the colors be softened to provide some additional warmth to the building. The architect for the project informed Staff that the design for the Sears buildings is the prototypical design currently being used by Sears. Per the direction of Sears, the architect made minimal changes to the elevations and re-submitted elevations for the Planning Commission's consideration which are very similar to the DRC submittal. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission review the elevations and provide direction regarding this matter at the June 2, 1997 Public Hearing. R:\STAFFRPT',llSPA97.PCI 5/28/9"/mf 7 Subdivision Map A fifty-nine (59) parcel subdivision of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan site, which encompasses the Forest City Development, Inc. project, was originally scheduled for the Planning Director hearing on May 22, 1997. The item was continued, at the request of the applicant, to the May 29, 1997 Planning Director hearing in order to clarify the Conditions of Approval for the project. The approval of a Tentative Map is required as a condition of approval for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan prior to the issuance of a grading permit on the site. Grading A grading plan has been included in the Planning Commission's exhibits. Staff has reviewed the plan and has determined it is consistent with the grading concept proposed in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. In addition, the plan has been modified to comply with the requirements of the Public Works Department. Currently, the applicant is proposing to remove soil from the Campos Verdes site and transport the soil on site. The project is anticipated to receive 1.2 million cubic yards of fill. Mitigation Monitoring The applicant will need to comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Temecula Regional Center Environmental Impact Report. Condition of Approval No. 11 of the Regional Center Specific Plan and Condition of Approval No. 14 of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan require the applicant to deposit funds with the City of Temecula to retain the services of a qualified consultant to implement and administer the respective Mitigation Monitoring Programs for the Environmental Impact Reports. Staff requested estimates from five (5) firms to administer and implement the Mitigation Monitoring Programs for these projects. Based upon Staff's review of the estimates, Tom Dodson & Associates was selected as the consultant to perform these services. The City Council will consider awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Tom Dodson and Associates to Perform Services to Administer and Implement the Mitigation Monitoring Programs for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report at the May 27, 1997 City Council Meeting. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION This project is consistent with the City's General Plan since the General Plan currently designates the site as Community Commercial, Professional Office and Public/Institutional Facilities and the Development Plan is consistent with these designations. This project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 2_63, since the development project which is implemented by this Development Plan meets all the requirements of this Specific Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Environmental Impact Report No. 340 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 263 and was certified by the City of Temecula City Council in July, 1993. An addendum for the project was adopted by the City Council in 1994. It has been two and one-half (2 ½) years since the environmental R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PC1 5/28/97 mf 8 analysis was performed for this project. Based upon this information, it is Staff's opinion that due to the scope of the proposed Development Agreement, there will be no effect on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. Staff has conducted an Initial Environmental Study (IES) to determine if the project is within the thresholds established in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Based upon our analysis, the project is consistent with the EIR's findings; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project components which are before the Planning Commission for their consideration are: the mall and power center site plan, mall and power center elevations, mall and power center landscape plan, mall and power center color and material boards, Robinsons-May site/landscape plan, Robinsons-May elevations and Robinsons-May color and material board. Several perimeter development envelopes are also identified on the site plan. The colors and materials used for the mall shops are compatible with surrounding development and the Temecula region in general. The Power Center is located on the eastern portion of the project site. Staff has directed the applicant to adequately screen the rear of these buildings which includes the loading areas. The rear of the buildings have been articulated in a manner similar to the front of the buildings. Elevations utilize similar colors and materials used on the mall project. The facades of the buildings have been broken up through the use of entry features, varied roof heights, landscaping and some trellises. There are several components of the mall project which Staff has not received elevations for at this time. A condition of approval has been included for the project which requires future elevations of these components to use architectural elements which are found on the mall. The applicant has identified potential building envelopes for the outlots and potential square footage for pads and major retail tenants. Since the applicant has no definitive plans at this time, a condition of approval has been added to the project which requires the applicant to submit a design manual for approval by the Planning Commission. A subsequent Traffic Study was submitted for the project (dated May 9, 1997) and reviewed by Staff. Staff required the applicant to provide an analysis which would determine if the project (as proposed) was consistent with the previous analysis performed for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The Study concludes project trip generation falls within the Specific Plan totals included in the EIR Traffic Study. The project will initially take access from Winchester, Ynez and Margarita Roads. Ultimately, the project will also be accessible from the future extension of Overland Drive. Two (2) major entries and three (3) minor entries are proposed on Winchester Road. Two (2) major entries are proposed on Ynez Road. One (1) major entry and two (:2) minor entries are proposed on Margarita Road. Additional right turn lanes are proposed into the major entries on Winchester Road and at the northernmost major entry on Ynez Road. A central "ring road" will encompass R:\STAFFRPT\118PA97.PCI 5128/97 raf 9 the mall and will provide access to the power center and perimeter lots (outlots). Pursuant to the Development Agreement between Forest City Development, Inc. and the City of Temecula on December 16, 1997, the City shall design, construct, install and maintain the perimeter road improvements to Winchester Road, Ynez Road, Margarita Road (Winchester to Solana) and Overland Drive (between Ynez Road and Margarita Road). In addition, the City will construct new or remodel existing traffic signals, underground overhead power and communications lines on the south side of Winchester Road from Ynez Road to Margarita Road and construct regional storm drainage facilities. A Committee consisting of Commissioner Miller, the City's Landscape Architect and Staff met prior to the May 8, 1997 DRC meeting to generate comments on these plans. The landscape plan has been coordinated with the site plan and sidewalk plan and the appropriate tree choices have been used along the sidewalks. The fifty percent shading requirement for parking stalls has not been met on these plans. A Condition of Approval has been added to the project which reads: "Per the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, a 50% minimum average actual parking stall (space) area shall be shaded. A sidewalk plan has been prepared for the project. This plan depicts pedestrian routes of travel throughout the project and connects all of the components of the project. Potential locations for signs have been identified on the site plan. These locations are conceptual at this time. A condition of approval has been included for the project which requires a comprehensive sign program be approved by the Planning Manager prior to the Issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission provide direction regarding the special treatment at the corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads, as well as on the landscape plans for the Sears Department and Sears Auto Service Center. A grading plan has been reviewed the plan and has been determined to be consistent with the grading concept proposed in the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. This project is consistent with the City's the General Plan and Specific Plan No. 263. FINDINGS The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's General Plan, Specific Plan No. 263, and Ordinance No. 96-24 (An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula, California approving a Development Agreement (Planning Application No. PA96-0333) between the City of Temecula, Forest City Development California, Inc. And LGA-7, Inc.). The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. R:\STAFFRF~I18PA97.PCI 5/28/9"/n~ 10 The project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and no additional environmental review is needed for the following reasons:: On July 13, 1993, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 93-57 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 340 with addendum, adoption of the Statements of Overriding Consideration and approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program on property located at the southeast corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No(s) 910-130-046, 047; 921-090-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, and 006," certifying the Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 263 and Zone Change 5589 for the Property. Additionally, on October 11, 1994, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 94-100 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula adopting the addendum to the FEIR No. 340; to adopt an addendum to FEIR No. 340 including a new Mitigation Monitoring Program and determining no additional impacts as a result of changing the circulation mitigation measures located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Ynez Road and Winchester Road." The Council found at this time that the proposed specific plan and zone change did not change any of the impacts identified in FEIR No. 340, none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR had occurred, only minor technical changes or additions were necessary to make FEIR No. 340 adequate under CEQA, and the changes to the EIR by the Addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. The Staff of the Planning Department has prepared an Initial Environmental Study, dated May 15, 1997 analyzing the proposed Development Plan and the prior environmental actions on the Project, which Initial Study is incorporated herein by this reference. The proposed Development Plan incorporates the provisions of the City's General Plan, Specific Plan No. 263, the current zoning regulations for the Property, the Mitigation Plan of Environmental Impact Report No. 340 and such other ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvement, development fees, and construction standards applicable to the Property. All of the components of the proposed Development Plan which might affect the environment were discussed and analyzed in FEIR 340. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for the Amendment unless required by 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15161 or 15163. Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration of the evidence, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that neither a Subsequent EIR a Supplemental EIR, nor further environmental review is required for the Development Plan pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163, based on the following findings of the Planning Commission: R:\STAFFRPT\llSPA97.PC1 5/28/F'/mf 1 1 The elements of the Project as described in the Development Plan were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the EIR certified and approved by the City Council on July 13, 1993 and the Addendum thereto approved on October 11, 1994 for the approval of Specific Plan 263 and Zone Change 5589; There have been no subsequent changes to the Project since October 11, 1994 which would require major revisions of the previous FEIR and Addendum due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR and Addendum due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that the Project might have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR and Addendum. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that significant effects previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR and Addendum. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR and Addendum would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. R:\STAFFRFr\IISPA97.PCl 5/28/97 mf 12 Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 14 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 19 Initial Study - Blue Page 31 Exhibits - Blue Page 52 Ao B. C D. E. E-1. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. T. U. V. Vicinity Map General Plan Map Zoning Map Site Plan Landscape Plan Landscape Enlargements Sidewalk Plan Mall Elevations Mall Color Elevations Mall Color and Material Board Power Center Elevations Power Center Color Elevations Power Center Color and Material Board Robinsons-May Site/Landscape Plan Robinsons-May Elevations Robinsons-May Color Elevations Robinsons-May Color and Material Board Mall Floor Plan Grading Plan Sears Site/Landscape Plan Sears Elevations Sears Color Elevations Sears Color and Material Board R:\STAFFRPT\llSPA97.PCI 5/28/97 mf 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- R:\STAFFRFI~IISPA97.1~C1 5/28/9"/mf 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMLqSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - MALL AND POWER CENTER SITE PLAN, MALL AND POWER CENTER ELEVATIONS, MALL AND POWER CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN, MALL AND POWER CENTER COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARDS, ROBINSONS- MAY SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN, ROBINSONS-MAY ELEVATIONS AND ROBINSONS-MAY COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD) ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 133.5 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD, EAST OF YNEZ ROAD, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND NORTH OF THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910- 130-047, 910-130-052, 910-130-053, 910-130-054, 921-090-048, 921-090-051, 921-090-053, 921-090-056 WHEREAS, Forest City Development, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WI-IEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) on June 2, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development 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. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) makes the following findings; to wit: R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PCI 5/28/97 mf 1 5 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's General Plan, Specific Plan No. 263, and Ordinance No. 96-24 (An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula, California approving a Development Agreement (Planning Application No. PA96-0333) between the City of Temecula, Forest City Development California, Inc. And LGA-7, Inc.). 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3. F~nvironmental Compliance. The Planning Commission hereby further finds and determines that the Project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and that no additional environmental review is needed for the following reasons: a. On July 13, 1993, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 93-57 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 340 with addendum, adoption of the Statements of Overriding Consideration and approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program on property located at the southeast corner of Ynez and Winchester Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No(s) 910-130-046, 047; 921-090-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, and 006," certifying the Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 263 and Zone Change 5589 for the Property. b. Additionally, on October 11, 1994, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 94-100 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula adopting the addendum to the FEIR No. 340; to adopt an addendum to FEIR No. 340 including a new Mitigation Monitoring Program and determining no additional impacts as a result of changing the circulation mitigation measures located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Ynez Road and Winchester Road." The Council found at this time that the proposed specific plan and zone change did not change any of the impacts identified in FEIR No. 340, none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR had occurred, only minor technical changes or additions were necessary to make FFJR No. 340 adequate under CEQA, and the changes to the EIR by the Addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. c. The Staff of the Planning Department has prepared an Initial Environmental Study, dated May 15, 1997 analyzing the proposed Development Plan and the prior environmental actions on the Project, which Initial Study is incorporated herein by this reference. R:\STAFFRP~I18PA97.PCI 5/28/97 nff 16 d. The proposed Development Plan incorporates the provisions of the City's General Plan, Specific Plan No. 263, the current zoning regulations for the Property, the Mitigation Plan of Environmental Impact Report No. 340 and such other ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvement, development fees, and construction standards applicable to the Property. All of the components of the proposed Development Plan which might affect the environment were discussed and analyzed in FEIR 340. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for the Amendment unless required by 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15161 or 15163. e. Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration of the evidence, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that neither a Subsequent F~IR a Supplemental EIR, nor further environmental review is required for the Development Plan pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163, based on the following findings of the Planning Commission: f. The elements of the Project as described in the Development Plan were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the EIR certified and approved by the City Council on July 13, 1993 and the Addendum thereto approved on October 11, 1994 for the approval of Specific Plan 263 and Zone Change 5589. g. There have been no subsequent changes to the Project since October 11, 1994 which would require major revisions of the previous FEIR and Addendum due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. h. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR and Addendum due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. I. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that the Project might have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR and Addendum. j. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that significant effects previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR and Addendum. k. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PCl 5/28/97 mf ] 7 1. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR and Addendum would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Mall and Power Center Site Plan, Mall and Power Center Elevations, Mall and Power Center Landscape Plan, Mall and Power Center Color and Material Boards, Robinsons-May Site/Landscape Plan, Robinsons-May Elevations and Robinsons-May Color and Material Board) on a parcel containing 131 acres located south of Winchester Road, east of Ynez Road, west of Margarita Road, and north of the future extension of Overland Drive and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-130-047, 910-130-052, 910-130-053, 910-130-054, 921-090-048, 921-090-051, 921-090-053, 921-090-056 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of June, 1997. Linda Fahey, Chairman 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 2nd day of June, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PC1 5128197 mf 18 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRP'D, I18PA97.PC1 $/28/97 mf 19 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA97-0118 {Development Plan) Project Description: The design and construction of a 1,019,846 square foot regional mall, a 403,000 square foot power center (retail), a 80,000 square foot cinema and 235,000 square feet of future retail space on 133.5 acres Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 910-130-047, 910-130-052, 910-130-053, 910-130-054, 921-090-048, 921-090-051,921-090-053, 921-090-056 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition. General Requirements The Applicants and Owners of each parcel within the subdivision, jointly and severally, shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA97- 0118 (Development Plan), which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et see., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the Applicant and Owners of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, Applicant and Owners shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. R:\STAFN'RPT~llSPA~/.PC1 5/25/97 mf 20 This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D (Site Plan - Ultimate Development), as approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118, or as amended by these conditions. a. A minimum of 6,904 parking spaces shall be provided. b. A minimum of 121 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in accordance with the City's Development Code. Access from the outlots to the ring road shall be limited to a maximum of one (1) per outlot building. Outlot buildings shall be generally located as close as possible to the public streets to provide a distinctive streetscape. Parking for the outlots shall be primarily oriented toward the ring road and mall. Areas identified for future expansion shall be approved by the Community Development Director if the elevations are consistent with the previously approved elevations for the project. If the elevations are not consistent, the Community Development Director may take the plans for the proposed expansion before the Planning Commission for review and approval. Landscaping for the mall, power center and outlots shall conform substantially with Exhibit E (Conceptual Landscape Plan) and E-1 (Landscape Enlargements), as approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. Landscaping for each component of the project shall be installed prior to the Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the specific component. bo Per the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, a 50% minimum average actual parking stall (space) area shall be shaded. The applicant shall submit landscape plans to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval which reflect this requirement prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Mall or Power Center component of the project, whichever comes first. All disturbed and unbuilt areas which will have interim landscaping shall be landscaped in accordance with the City's Development Code. R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA9?.PC1 5/28/97 mf 21 o 10. 11. Sidewalks shall be installed in accordance with Exhibit F (Sidewalk Plan). Building elevations for the Mall shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, and Exhibit H (color elevations) or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used for the Mall shall conform substantially with Exhibit I, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Materials Cloth (Canopy) Aluminum (Storefront) Metal (Entry) Wood Shingle (Roof) Glass (Vision) Glass (Spandrel) Stucco (Walls) Stucco (Accent) Stucco (Accent) Stone (Capital, Column, Accent) Concrete (Walkways) Concrete (Entertainment Plaza and Entryways) Stone (Walkways) Colors Sherwin Williams #SW1468 (Tourmaline) Sherwin Williams #SW1320 (Tasteful Tan) Sherwin Williams #SW2419 (Tempest Blue) Sherwin Williams #SW1462 (Park Bench) Ford (Ford Blue) Ford (Dark Blue) Sherwin Williams #SW 1074 (Ostrich Feathers) Sherwin Williams #SW1316 (Winnipeg Sand) Sherwin Williams #1066 (Salmon Suede) Adonquin de Cantera Natural Gray Terra Cotta #406, #400 and #408 Building elevations for the Power Center shall conform substantially with Exhibit J, and Exhibit K (color elevations) or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used for the Power Center shall conform substantially with Exhibit L, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Materials Aluminum (Storefront) Metal (Grill) Metal (Roof) Glass (Vision) Stucco (Walls) Stucco (Accent) Stucco (Accent) Stone (Capital, Column, Accent) Stucco (Cornice) Stucco (Walls) Stucco (Walls) Concrete (Building Base) Concrete (Roof) Sherwin Williams #SW1320 (Tasteful Tan) Sherwin Williams #SW2419 (Tempest Blue) Sherwin Williams #SW1462 (Park Bench) Ford (Ford Blue) Sherwin Williams #SW 1074 (Ostrich Feathers) Sherwin Williams #SW1316 (Winnipeg Sand) Sherwin Williams #1066 (Salmon Suede) Adonquin de Cantera Sherwin Williams #SW 1109 (Aria Ivory) Sherwin Williams #SW1106 (Whole Grain) Sherwin Williams #1111 (Kaffe Tan) To Match Adonquin de Cantera Monier #12600 (Vermont Green) Landscaping for Robinsons-May shall conform substantially with Exhibit M, as approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. R: \STAFFRPT\ l 18PA97.PC1 5/28197mf 22 12. Building elevations for Robinsons-May shall conform substantially with Exhibit N, and Exhibit 0 (color elevations) or as amended by these conditions. 13. Colors and materials used for Robinsons-May shall conform substantially with Exhibit P, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Materials Stone (Entrance) Stone (Entrance) Stone (Entrance) Plaster/Stucco (Walls) Plaster/Stucco (Walls) Plaster/Stucco (Walls) Aluminum (Canopy and Storefront) Concrete (Walkways) Concrete (Walkways) Ameristone 817 (Sedona Red) Ameristone //13 (Woodbury Pink) Ameristone //14 (White Ash) Sherwin Williams SW 1067 Sherwin Williams SW 1065 Sherwin Williams SW 1064 Clear Anodized Aluminum Natural Concrete Chromix Admixture //5234 14. Prior to any application submittal for any of the periphery developments along Winchester and Ynez Roads, Pads A, B, and C, Major Retail F, G, H, and I, the applicant shall submit five (5) copies of a Design Manual for review by the Community Development Department - Planning Division and approval by the Planning Commission. Said Design Manual shall enumerate the design elements which are appropriate for the development. The applicant shall pay the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). The Community Development Director shall have the authority to approve any development which is consistent with the Design Manual without a public hearing. The fee for those projects which are consistent with the Design Manual shall be the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). If the Director determines the project is not consistent with the Design Guidelines, or the project would require a Conditional Use Permit (per Specific Plan No. 263), the matter will be set for a Planning Commission hearing and the appropriate full Application Fee will be required. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 15. If the project is to be built in phases, the applicant shall submit a phasing to include: a site plan, sidewalk plan and landscape plan to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a precise grading plan. 16. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation). 17. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No. 263/EIR No. 340 have been satisfied for this stage of the development. R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PC1 5128197 ~ 23 Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 18. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid for each of the following components of the project: Mall, Power Center, Outlots, Department Stores, Cinema, Plaza, Entertainment Plaza Retail and 50,000 square foot retail. 19. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the mall or power center, whichever comes first, three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans (minimum 1" = 50' scale) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. In addition, all major and minor entry features and monumentation and the corner landscape and monumentation features (Winchester and Ynez Roads and Winchester and Margarita Roads) shall be included on the plans. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). 20. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Robinsons-May, Sears, the Sears Auto Service Center, Anchor Numbers 3 and Anchor Numbers 4, the Cinema, the area identified as "future 50,000 square feet retail," and each of the outlots, the applicant(s) shall submit three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans (minimum 1" =50' scale) to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: ao Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). 21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any future expansions to the anchors or cinema identified on Exhibit D, or any other component of the project, the applicant(s) shall submit a Development Plan to the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Said Development Plan shall be accompanied by the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PCI 5/28/97 mf 24 22. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No. 263/EIR No. 340 have been satisfied for this stage of the development. 23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for either the plaza area, the cinema or the area identified on Exhibit D as ~Entertainment Plaza Retail" (whichever comes first), a detailed site and landscape plan (1"=20' scale) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval. The plan should attempt to incorporate many of the following amenities into the plaza area: planter boxes w/trees and seating area, benches, stage area, tables, chairs, shade structures to include trellises w/vines & misters, shaded turf open space, awnings, shaded seating areas, street lamps, trash receptacles, a fountain/water feature, art/sculptures, a variety of color, hanging plants, seasonal color (plantings), decorative bollards, enhanced paving areas, archways/gateways, outdoor movie screen, a gazebo, outdoor vendor carts, heaters, fans, and clock(s). 24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Cinemas, JC Penney's, Anchor No. 4 and the area identified as "50,000 retail," each applicant shall submit a Development Plan application for review by the Community Development Department - Planning Division and approval by the Planning Commission. Said Development Plan application shall be accompanied by the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 25. Prior to the Issuance of the first Occupancy Permit, the applicant shall submit five (5) copies of a Sign Program for the project to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval by the Planning Manager. The sign program shall address appropriate colors, materials, heights and locations for the signage (wall-mounted, monument and directional) and shall be accompanied by the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). 26. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy for the site, all major and minor entry features and monumentation shall be installed. The corner landscape and monumentation features (Winchester and Ynez Roads and Winchester and Margarita Roads) shall be installed. 27. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view from adjacent public streets. 28. Prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each component of the project, sidewalks shall be installed for that component. 29. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy for each component of the project, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed in accordance with approved landscape and irrigation plan and be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. R:\STAFFRPTkllSPA97.PC1 5/28/9'7 mf 25 30. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 31. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for each component of the project. 32. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 33. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No. 263/EIR No. 340 have been satisfied for this stage of the development. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 34. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 35. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plans for approval. 36. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 37. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 38. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations and must be fully detailed for plan check submittal. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). R:\STAFFRP'T~llSPAg"/.P~I 5125197 mf 26 39. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 40. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 41. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C and State of California Title 24, Part 2 Accessibility Standards. 42. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with Building and Fire Codes. 43. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 44. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 45. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record, the truss manufacturer's engineer are required for plan review submittal. 46. Provide an approved precise grading plan with plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. General Requirements 47. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 48. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 49. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and landscape and irrigation plans and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 50. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and City of Temecula Standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The grading plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. R:\STAFFRPT~I18PA97.PCl 5/2819'7 m~ 27 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Fish & Game Army Corps of Engineers The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to or deferred by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. R:\STAFFRPT\IlgPA97.PCl 5/28197 mf 28 60. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. 61. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 62. Parcel Map 28530 shall be approved and recorded. 63. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 64. The Developer/Owner shall pay the Development Mitigation Fee in compliance with Planning Application No. PA96-0333 (Development Agreement); the terms as identified in Section (3) of Item 6 the Agreement. This fee is in lieu of the signal mitigation and development impact fees. 65. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City of Temecula Standard No. 113. d. All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 66. The Developer shall construct the following improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. a. On-site traffic control devices as appropriate Storm drain facilities, except as otherwise provided for in Planning Application No. PA96-0333 (Development Agreement) c. Sewer and domestic water systems R:\STAFFRPT~I18PA97.PCI 5/2819'7.~ 29 67. On-site bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA) and approved by the Department of Public Works. 68. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 69. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District 70. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 71. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. OTHER AGENCIES 72. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March 24, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 73. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated April 28, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 74. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Fire Department's transmittal dated May 20, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California Department of Transportation's transmittal dated April 29, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 76. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated April 28, 1997, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Applicant Name R:\STAFFRPT~IlSPA97.PC1 5/28/9"/mf 30 TO: FROM RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DALE: Marcn 24, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Matthew Fagan ,'~GREGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV PLOT PLAN NO. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA97-0118 and has no objections. 2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ISSUANCE · a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. c) If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (694-5022) will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4. Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2). Waste reduction management. GD:dr (909) 285-8980 cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Branch DAVID P. ZAPPE General Mam~gcr-Chiel' Engineer City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: P~/RTTH~ Ladies and Gentlemen: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/275-1200 By FA~A N nI TlaRIIT!:D ,/ The Distdct does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. .The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood naza.r~o re.ports for such _ca.s.es.. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specinc interest to the uistdc~ including Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical componenfor extension of a master plan system, and Distdct Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way con, stitu. te. or imply D.!strict ap. p~ova/or endorsement of the proposed project w~th respect to flood hazard, public health ano smety or any omar sucn issue: ~" This project would not be impacted by Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities t a uld be ~ns.(der..ed regional in na_.ture_and/or a logical e.xt. ension of the adopted/v/tJ,q, R JF_.. Master urainage Plan. I ne uistrict would consioer accepting ownership ol~ such facilities on Written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. ~.,/' This project is located within the limits of the Distdct's ~U~,RIE.,T~ ("R~£K//"TE..I"IE~C.,ULR ~L~,~'rea ~D.ra!nage PLa.n for whi.ch .drainage fees, have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid to the Hood Control uistrictor ~Jity pdor to nna~ approva~ of the project, or in the case of aparcel map or subdivision prior to recordation of the final map. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of recordation, or if de erred, at the time of issuance of the actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been gran{ed a permit or is shown to b6 exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a C ean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or wdtten correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 perrolE C] ery truly yours, TUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engin..e, er Date: '4-~ City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive - PO Box 9033 - Temecula, California 92589-9033 (909) 694-6439 FAX (909) 694-6478 May 20,1997 TO: Planning Department ATTN: Matthew Fagan RE: PA97-0118 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced development plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with the City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 5000 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Approved super fire hydrants, (6X4X2-2 %") shall be located on ring road, at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction. The required fire flow shall be available from a super fire hydrant (6"x4"x2-2 ¼" ), located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along vehicular travelways. Applicant/developer shall fumish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the job site. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. A fire protection report shall be submitted to fire department. This report shall be completed and wet stamped signature by a Registered Fire Protection Engineer. A fire control room shall be provided. Fire control room shall have access from the exterior and interior of the building. 8. A minimum of two dedicated phone lines shall be provided in fire control room Fire alarm control panel with computer read out, smoke evacuation system control panel and all detection, suppression and control systems shall be located in fire control room. 10. Fire department communication system shall be provided within the mall complex and the anchor buildings. Contact the fire prevention staff for specifications. 11. Building shall comply with 1994 UBC Section 404 and 1995 California Fire Code Article 35. 12. Install a complete fire sprinkler and Class I Standpipe system in buildings. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building plans. 13. The building shall be equipped with a manual and automatic fire alarm system with visual devices, prerecorded voice evacuation message and monitored to a U.L. approved central receiving station. 14. Smoke Control system shall be installed within the mall. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. 15. Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fire or burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. 16. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 10 of the Uniform Building Code. Low level exit signs shall also be provided, where exit signs are required by section 1013. 17. Occupancy separation walls will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, Section 302.4. 18. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement. 19. It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code. 20. All security grilles and grates on tenant suites and anchor buildings shall be openable from the inside with out the use of key or special knowledge or effort. 21. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire hydrant. 22. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane 23. Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the street side of the building with a contrasting background. Suite numbers for tenant spaces shall be minimum 6 inches in height on front and rear entrances. 24. All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing materials as described in The Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall be a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the fire department prior to installation. 25. All temporary events in mall space shall be approved and inspected by fire department prior to the event. 26. Decorative material within the mall space shall be of flame resistant materials. 27. Current lease plans shall be kept at the mall office and updated copies forwarded to fire department. 28. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. 29. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and engineering section (909)693-3974. Laura Cabral Fire Safety Specialist STATE Of CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402 TDD (909) 383-5959 April 29, 1997 PETE WILSON, 08-Riv-79-R2.4/R3.2 Mr. Matthew Fagan Associate Planner Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Mr. Fagan: Planning Application No. PA97-0083 (TPM No. 28531); Planning Application No. PA97-0099 (TPM No. 28530); and, Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Site Plan -- Ultimate Developement) We have reviewed the above-referenced documents and request consideration of the following comment: It has been mutually discussed that the ultimate plan for State Route 79 (SR 79) in the project area is a six (6) lane, limited-access facility within a 134' right of way over a new alignment. The City of Temecula should develop policies and procedures to preserve the needed right of way, and maintain and improve the current facility. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the city of Temecula was finalized on November 13, 1995. This MOU serves as a guideline for new development and upgrade or realignment of SR-79. The following excerpts are from this MOU: Route 79 is planned for up to three lanes in each direction for through traffic and up to two lanes in each direction for local circulation. Realignment may be necessary upon future development along Route 79. Mr. Matthew Fagan April 29, 1997 Page 2 The City shall hereafter protect the right-of-way for said realignment by limiting development approvals for North Route 79 (Winchester Road) as follows: Intersections will be spaced at 1/4 mile increments with 1/8 mile spacing for limited access driveways (i.e., right in, right out only) from Interstate 15 (I-15) to Margarita Road. Concerning drainage, care should be taken when developing this project to preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern of the state highway. Particular consideration must be given to cumulative increased storm runoff to ensure that a highway drainage problem is not created. This project will require an encroachment permit if there is any work, including work pertaining to: access, grading, and drainage, within the State highway right of way; the Department of Transportation would be a responsible agency and may require certain measures be provided as a condition of permit issuance. The developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the District 8 Permits Office prior to beginning work. Their address and phone number are listed below: Office of Permits California Department of Transportation P.O. Box 231 San Bernardino, CA 92402 (909) 383-4536 If you have any questions, please contact Cecil Karst~nsen at (909) 383-5922 or FAX (909) 383-7934. Sincerely, // Office of Riverside County Transportation Planning Watsr Board of Directors: Michael R. McMillan Pro.~ident C'saba F. Ko Ralph H. Daily Lisa D. lieman Doug Kulberg Jeffrey L. Minkler George M. Woods { ) fiicers John F. Hennigar Phillip L. Forbes E. P. 'T~ob" Lemons Kenneth C. Dealy Perry R. Leuck Linda M. Fregoso C. Michael Cowerr Best Rest & Krieger LLP April 28, 1997 ,997 By Mr. Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY, PARCEL MAP 28530 (REGIONAL MALL AND POWER CENTER) APNS 910-130-047, 910-130-052, 910-130-053, 921-090- 048. 921-090-051, 921-090-053, 921-090-054 AND APN 921-090-056, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 Dear Mr. Fagan: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 97/SB:ebO72/FO12/FEF c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor Rancho California Water District ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\STAFFRPT\IISPA97.PC1 5/28/97 mf 31 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 2. 3. 4. Project Title: Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Person and Phone Number: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location: East of Ynez Road, south of Winchester Road, west of Margarita Road and north of the proposed Overland Road extension Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Forest City Development, Inc. 949 S. Hope Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 92504 LGA-7, Inc. 9601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 General Plan Designation: CC (Community Commercial), P (Public/Institutional Facilities) and O (Professional Office) Zoning: SP (Specific Plan - Regional Center) Description of Project: The design and construction of a 1,079,846 square foot regional mall, a 403,000 square foot power center (retail) and 235,000 square feet of future retail space on 131 acres An Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan was certified in July, 1993. An Addendum to the EIR was adopted in October, 1994. The 1993 EIR indicated that even after implementing the proposed mitigations, several significant impacts will remain. The remaining significant impacts will be to Noise, Climate and Air Quality, and Agriculture. Several other cumulatively significant impacts will occur if the other proposed Specific Plans for the region, Specific Plan No. 1 (Campos Verdes) and Specific Plan No. 255 (Winchester Hills), are developed. These additional areas of significant impact will be Seismic Safety, Flooding, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation and Traffic, Fire Services, Sheriff Services, Schools, Utilities and Libraries. As part of the certification of the EIR in 1993, the City Council had to adopt a Statement of Ovemding Considerations detailing why the project was approved in light of the unavoidable environmental effects. The 1994 EIR Addendum incorporated technical analysis (in the Areas oftraffle/circulation and drainage/flooding) into the Final EIR and integrated additional/revised mitigation measures into the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Under California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 if the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no additional EIR is required unless additional impacts not previously considered, or substantial increases in the severity of impacts, may result from: substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, or new information that R:\STAFFRPT\I18PA97.PC1 5128197 mf 32 10. could not have been known at the time the EIR was prepare& This Initial Environmental Study is tiered from the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum for the Specific Plan and examines the question of whether any impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1993 EIR and 1994 EIR Addendum, would result from the proposed Development Plan, changes in circumstances, or new information. Based upon Staff's analysis, the project is consistent with the information contained in the previously Certified EIR; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. Surrotmding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant to the south and east Palm Plaza (Commercial Center) and ACS (manufacturing and office) to the west Doctor's Medical Plaza (medical offices), Costco Center (Commercial Center ) and vacant to the north. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. R:\STAFFRPT~IlSPA97.PC1 5/28/97 mf 33 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise [ ] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services [ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance [X] None DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, that none of the conditions described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; therefore, the previous analysis performed under EIRNo. 340 (certified July, 1993) and the EIR Addendum (adopted October, 1994) adequately addresses all impacts from this project. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission and the City Council Make a Determination of Consistency With a Project for Which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Previously Certified and Findings that a Subsequent EIR is not required. Prinied Name Date R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PC1 5128197 mf 34 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rapture? b. Seismic ground shaking? Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e. Landslides or mudflows? f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g. Subsidence of the land? h. Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? Pot~tia~ly Significant [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] Potentially [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [1 [1 [] [l [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] No Ix] R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PC1 5128197 mf 35 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unlem Mitigation Incorporated Significant NO 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements7 f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? 6. TRANSPO RTATION/CIRCUI~4,TION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b. Hazards to safety fi-om design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PC1 5128197 mf 36 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)7 b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors7 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? b.Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? Potentially Significant [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Potentially Significant Unleas Mitigation Incorporated [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] No IX] R:\STAFFRFr~II8PA97.PC1 5/28/97 mf 37 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 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: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e. Other governmental services? 12. UTHJTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Pot~tially Significant Impact [l [1 [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [1 Potentially Unless Mitigation [] [] [1 [l [] [] [1 [1 [1 [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] Significant Impact [] [1 [1 [1 [1 [] [1 [1 [1 [1 [] [1 [l [1 [1 [1 [1 [] No R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PCI 5125197 mf 38 ISSUES AND SLIPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporatexl Significant No c. Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? b. Disturb archaeological resources? c. Affect historical resources? d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? 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 restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed m connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [] [] IX] [1 [] [] [~ [1 [] [1 [x] [] [] [1 [a [] [1 [1 [~ [] [1 [1 [~ [1 [] [] Ix] [1 [1 [] IX] [1 [1 [] [~ [] [1 [] [x] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ R:\STAFFRPTHISPA97.PC1 5128197 mf 39 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. a. Earlier analyses used: This Initial Environmental Study is tiered fixan the EIR for the Regional Center Specific Plan 0EIR No. 340) certified in 1993 and the EIR Addendum adopted in 1994. R:\STAFFRPT~I18PA97.PC1 5128/97 mf 40 EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST JUDGEMENTS The following checklist judgements list the level of impact anticipated from the proposed project. These judgements are made against the baseline of the adopted Specific Plan with its required mitigation. The checklist judgements address the question of whether the proposed project would result in additional impacts, not previously addressed in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. 1. Land Use Planning a) No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with the City's General Plan designation or zoning. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation and the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Planning Area 1 of the Specific Plan consists of 71.9 gross acres devoted primarily to mixed uses including retail, office, hotel, institutional and residential uses. Planning Area 2 of the Specific Plan consists of 97.8 acres of vacant land proposed as the central commercial core of the Temecula Regional Center. The uses proposed for the project in Planning Areas 1 and 2 are primarily retail and are consistent with Table IIA (Schedule of Permitted Uses). In regards to Planning Area 1, the Specific Plan (111-42) states: Ult is important to note that not all uses allowed in Planning Area 1 are necessarily expected to occur. For this reason, some of the above design features may not be appropriate nor economically feasible. For this reason, only the concept of a Main Street is discussed in depth above. Additional options for possible development in Planning Area 1 are discussed in Section IV, Design Guidelines, in the Specific Plan." The Illustrative Site Plans (Figures 27A, 27B and 27C) contained in Section IV of the Specific Plan state: "The site plan is provided for illustrative purposes only. Actual site plan configuration and building layouts will be determined during Development Plan review." Based upon this flexibility contained in the Specific Plan, Staff has determined the project is consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning for the proposed project which was adopted with approval of the Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and is therefore consistent with adopted regional plans. c) No Impact. The proposed project will not be incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity. Most of the adjacent land uses in the area are also commercial. Buffering has been considered and was included into the approved Specific Plan along the eastern portion of the site, adjacent to residential development. No buffering is required to the west, north and south. d) No Impact. The 1993 EIR identified the loss of agricultural lands as an unavoidable significant adverse impact by the adoption of the Specific Plan. Implementation of the Specific Plan will remove existing dry farmed cropland from production. It will also result in the loss of future agricultural lands designated as "Local Important Farm/and" and "Prime Farm/and" as indicated in the City's Draft General Plan, agricultural resources. Development of the property could theoretically hasten the conversion of other agricultural areas to urban uses by creating economic pressures and increasing land value for development. However, from a practical standpoint, this project is surrounded by urbanizing or planned urban development and farming operations have not been present on the property for several years. There are no practical mitigations for this impact, with R:\STAFFRP'IMISPA9'/.PC1 5125197 mf 41 the exception of no development, even though the impact is considered a significant impact. The City Council addressed this unavoidable impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. The site is currently vacant and is not being used for agricultural purposes. e) No Impact. The proposal will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted Specific Plan and will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the community in an manner that is different than contemplated in the Specific Plan. 2. Population and Housing The 1993 EIR did not identify any significant population and housing impacts. a) No Impact. The proposal will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. It is therefore consistent with official regional and local projections. b) No Impact. The proposal will not induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly beyond that previously analyzed in the 1993 EIR for the Specific Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not displace existing housing, especially affordable housing. The proposed project site is currently vacant. 3. Geologic Problems The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Geologic Problems ( Soils, Ground Rupture, Ground Surface Cracking, Liquefaction, Seismically Induced Flooding, Topography, Groundwater, Slope Stability and Wind Erosion) have been reduced to an insignificant level (Pages V-17, V-24 and V-25). a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from fault rupture beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impact from seismic ground shaking beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from seismic ground failure or liquefaction beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFFRFI~IIgPA97.PC1 5/28/9'7 mf 42 e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from landslides or mudflows beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. In additional, no additional significant geotechnical information regarding the project has been developed since certification of the 1993 EIR. f) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No additional significant geotechnical information regarding the project site, erosion, soil or grading related impacts have been developed since certification of the 1993 EIR. g) No Impact. The proposal will not result in an impact due to subsidence of the land. The proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No additional significant geotechnical information regarding the project has been developed since certification of the 1993 EIR. Therefore, no additional impacts beyond those described in the 1993 are anticipated. h) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from expansive soils beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No additional significant geotechnical information regarding the project has been developed since certification of the 1993 EIR. No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to unique geologic or physical features beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 4. Water The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Water (Water Quality and Flooding) have been reduced to an insignificant level (Pages V-30, and V-58). The 1994 EIR Addendum further elaborated upon the impacts from the project and additional/revised Mitigation Measures required. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PC1 5/25/~'/mf 43 d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional changes in the amount of surface water in any water body beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. f) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional change in the quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. g) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional alteration to the direction or rate of flow of groundwater beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. h) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to groundwater quality beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional substantial reductions in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 5. Air Quality The 1993 EIR identified Air Quality as impacted in an unavoidable significant adverse way by the certification of the EIR and the adoption of the Specific Plan. Although impacts to air quality will occur during the grading and construction phase of the project, the major impact to air quality will come from vehicle exhaust after build out of the project. Mitigation measures have been added to the project to lessen the impacts to the air quality. While measures provide feasible mitigations for the increased traffic, the impact to air quality will still be significant. The total number of vehicle trips generated from the project and surrounding projects cannot be reduced sufficiently to enable the impact to be considered insignificant. The City Council addressed these unavoidable impacts in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional potential to violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFF~llSPAW.PCI 5/28/9"] mf 4~ b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in the creation of any additional objectional odors beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 6. Transportation/Circulation The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Circulation and Traffic have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-117). This project impacts both on and off-site roadways. The size of the project generates sufficient traffic to require the project to comply with the State Congestion Management Program. The circulation pattern connects with proposed roadways that run through the City of Murrieta and the County of Riverside. The Traffic Study included in the technical appendix of the EIR details the impacts to the circulation system of all three jurisdictions. The analysis contains mitigation measures and timing requirements for the completion of the improvements. These mitigations have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of Approval for the project. Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. 1 concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263. The impacts will be lessened by adherence to the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. The City Council addressed this unavoidable impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. The 1994 EIR Addendum further elaborated upon the impacts from the project and additional/revised Mitigation Measures required. a) No Impact. A subsequent Traffic Study was submitted for the project and reviewed by Staff. Staff required the applicant to provide an analysis which would determine if the project (as proposed) was consistent with the previous analysis performed for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The Study concludes project trip generation falls within the Specific Plan totals included in the EIR Traffic Study. The Study further states: "while the proposed land use is consistent with the Specific Plan designations, it is evident that the proposed project trip generation would account for a somewhat higher pro-rated share of the total Specific Plan trip generation for the p.m. peak-hour than originally conceived in the Specific Plan." The Study lastly states: "This issue should be re-evaluated as specific development proposals are defined for the remaining portion of the site." A traffic analysis will be required for subsequent development within the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan area, not covered under the current project description above (the remainder of the property not developed by Forest City Development, Inc.). If these projects are under the threshold established by the original EIR Traffic Study (less those impacts identified under the Forest City Development Project) then a consistency finding may be made for these projects. If the future projects exceed this threshold, then subsequent environmental analysis may be required. R:\STAFPR.PT~llSPA97.PC1 5/28/97 mf 4~ The proposal will not result in any additional increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. Since the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan, no impacts are anticipated. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional hazards to safety from design features beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional inadequacies for emergency access or access to nearby uses beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. The project will result in a reduction in the existing inadequacies for emergency access or access to nearby uses by improving circulation in the area. Since the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan, no impacts are anticipated. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional insufficiencies to parking capacity on-site or off-site beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. The number of parking spaces proposed for the project exceeds the minimum standard required under the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. Since the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan, no impacts are anticipated. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. A sidewalk plan has been included with the project which will allow for a continuous network of pedestrian routes separate from vehicular routes. Bike lanes have also been included as part of the project which provides additional routes for bicyclists. f) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan which includes the previously established twenty-five (25) foot wide transportation corridor on Winchester Road. g) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional conflicts with rail, waterborne or air traffic beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 7. Biological Resources The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Wildlife/Vegetation have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-83). Although the site is not habitat for any rare or endangered species, the loss of the habitat will add to the cumulative loss of wildlife habitat in the area. This cumulative loss is considered significant even though the individual project impact is not considered significant. R:\STAFFRPT~llSPAg'7.PCI 5/28197 mf 4~ The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to locally designated species beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to locally designated natural communities beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to wetland habitat beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Energy and Mineral Resources have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-85). a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional conflicts with adopted energy conservation plans beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from the use of non- renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to which would result in the loss of availability of a known resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFFRP'IM18PA97.PCI 5128197 mf 47 9. Hazards The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Hazards (Toxic Substances, Page V-62 and Disaster Preparation, Page V-151) have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-85). a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation) beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to or in a possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or increases to fire hazards in areas of flammable brush, grass, or trees beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 10. Noise The 1993 EIR identified Noise as a significant adverse impact. Noise impacts will occur during grading and construction of the project, although the major impact to noise will be from the cumulative effect of increased traffic on the roadways from this project and additional development in the area. Impacts during construction will be lessened by controlling the time construction activities are allowed to take place. Even after implementation of feasible mitigation measures, the cumulative noise impact cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional increase in existing noise levels beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional exposure of people to severe noise levels beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFFP, P'I~llgPA97.PC1 5/28197 mf 48 11. Public Services The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Public Services (Fire Service, Page V-125; Police Protection - Page V-126; Schools, Page V-130 and Libraries, Page V -145) have been reduced to an insignificant level. Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. I concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263, in the areas of Public Services (Fire Protection Services, Police Protection Services, Schools, and Libraries). The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new or altered police protection services beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new or altered schools beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new or altered maintenance of public facilities, including roads beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for other new or altered governmental services beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 12. Utilities and Service Systems The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems (Water and Sewer, Page V-122; Utilities, Page V-137; and Solid Waste, Page V-143) have been reduced to an insignificant level. Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. I concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263, in the areas of Public Services (Water and Sewer and Utilities). The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFFRPTkllSPA9'7.PCI 5/28/97 mf 49 b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sewer or septic systems beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. f) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to slid waste disposal beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. g) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 13. Aesthetics The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Aesthetics (Scenic Highways, Page V-88 and Light and Glare, Page V-149) have been reduced to an insignificant level. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional increase or affect to a scenic vista or scenic highway beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional demonstrable negative aesthetic effect beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from light and glare beyond that described and mitigated in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAPFRF~llSPAg"/.PCl 5/28/9'7 xnf ~0 14. Cultural Resources The 1993 EIR indicated no cultural resources are anticipated to occur on the site (EIR No. 340, Appendix D, Technical Appendices). Adherence to the paleontologists mitigation program and the conditions of approval will reduce the potential impact to a level of non-significance (Cultural and Scientific Resources, Page V-92). Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. 1 concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263, in the areas of Public Services (Water and Sewer and Utilities). The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not resources beyond those described in is within the scope of the 1993 EIR result in any additional impacts to paleontological the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to archaeological resources beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to historical resources beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts which would restrict existing religious or scared uses within the potential impact area beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 15. Recreation The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Recreation (Open Space and Conversation, Page V-69 and Parks and Recreation, Page V-132) have been reduced to an insignificant level. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or an increase in the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts affecting existing recreational opportunities beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PCI 5/28/97 mf 51 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:\STANNRPT~lliPAg?.PCI 5/28197 mf ~2 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN} VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA BP SC P C BP .f SC BP <,,~.C( BP CC P BP BP BP H f H sc PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT S GENERAL PLAN MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 {DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT C ZONING MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA _/ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT E LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA TYF1CAL MALL .~_~j~. ENTRy PLAN (~ YNEZ ROAD 32'-0" LDZ Pt. AN AND .~CTION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT E-1 LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT F SIDEWALK PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA .......................................... .......................................... PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PAO7-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT e MALL ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA MAY EI.EVATION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT G MALL ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 X..LtC)~S3~O:I ~.:]'1'~00~ LN.J'WdO1]A3G NOlS.ln AII~NIWI1311d iI~IJ.N]3 l~tNOlO.11t Vltt2:=lW=lJ. EXHIBIT CASE # 'i P/t-'jq.- -ml~, CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT J POWER CENTER ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 {DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT J POWER CENTER ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT J POWER CENTER ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 Z '\ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT M ROBINSONS-MAY SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PAg7-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT N ROBINSONS-MAY ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 EXHIBIT CASE # P1 B1 B2 B3 01 LEGEND I{OBINSONS- ~A¥ I'I-~'()NII~:N.\I)K IX TI~:MF]('I'I..\ \.\I.I.K'~' '!~I*:MF:("I~I,.\, ("\l,11:()l~'Xl.\ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT e MALL FLOOR PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT e MALL FLOOR PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT R GRADING PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA SEARS AUTO CENT£R SEARS DEPARTMENT STORE ¥. LANDSCAPE P'_AN ' ,,,i~: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT S SEARS SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA NORTH ELE'VAIION N01~TH [L[VATION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT T SEARS ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXHIBIT T SEARS ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 CITY OF TEMECULA , NORTH ~..~/ATION ,~r. ~ EAST PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) EXH~mT T SEARS ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 2, 1997 O~'d 5 ~,':'- ~;; ' ¥1N ;~:t 0 '~ I-')¥0 "q N IAi~lt J ¥01_q IO~'d ~'qJ-N":10 'qNMOJ_ ~'qn:DqlAlq_L m T[MF'CULA TOWN£ CENT[R ARCHITECTS I I~e"l N I~, CALIFORNIA PACIF'ICA LTD ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JULY 7, 1997 R:\FORM$\STAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 klb 2~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director DATE: July 7, 1997 SUBJECT: Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) the design and construction of a 1,019,846 square foot regional mall, a 403,000 square foot power center (retail), a 80,000 square foot cinema and 235,000 square feet of future retail space on 133.5 acres - Forest City Development, Inc. Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: MAKE a Determination of Consistency With a Project for Which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Previously Certified and Findings that a Subsequent EIR is not required; and ADOPT Resolution No. 97-__ approving Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Mall and Power Center Site Plan, Mall and Power Center Elevations, Mall and Power Center Landscape Plan, Mall and Power Center Color and Material Boards; Robinsons-May Site/Landscape Plan, Robinsons-May Elevations and Robinsons-May Color and Material Board, Sears Site/Landscape Plan, Sears Elevations and Sears Color and Material Board) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND This project was originally heard by the Planning Commission at their June 2, 1997 meeting. The project was continued by the Commission to their June 16, 1997 meeting. The following issues needed to be addressed by the applicant: power center elevations, the site landscape plan, the corner treatment at Winchester and Ynez Roads and the Sears and Sears Auto Center Elevations. The applicant was unable to provide revised exhibits prior to the June 16, 1997 Planning Commission hearing and requested the project be continued to the July 7, 1997 Planning Commission hearing. The Commission did not meet on June 16, 1997; therefore, the project was re-noticed for the July 7, 1997 Planning Commission hearing. R:\STAFFRPT\I18PA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd ]~ ANALYSIS Power Center Elevations Staff requested the Planning Commission provide direction regarding the Power Center Elevations. As a result of the June 2, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant was directed to address breaking up the overall massing the of the buildings by incorporating the following design components: Vary the roof heights at places other than the store entries. Incorporate design elements and colors from the mall building. Continue the building base elements from the front to the rear of the building. Utilize a broader range of colors and materials to differentiate the individual retail stores. Provide landscaping next to the building on the sides and rear of the building. Enhance and expand the number of gathering areas and provide more details. Provide more overhangs. Vary the architectural features at the building entrances. Staff received revisions to the elevations on June 18, 1997 and provided comments to the architect. It is Staff's opinion the architect has addressed the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. The colors and materials used for the Power Center are called out on the same color and materials board for the mall. A revised color and materials board is included in the Planning Commissioners' exhibits. Should the Planning Commission approve the color and materials for the mall and power center, then the colors and materials specified in the conditions of approval need to be modified. Landscape Plan and Corner Treatment at Winchester and Ynez Roads At the request of the applicant, these items were not discussed in detail at the June 2, 1997 Planning Commission hearing. Commissioner Miller and Commissioner Soltysiak were selected to be on a committee to review landscape issues. The Commissioners, the applicant, their landscape architect and Staff met on June 17, 1997. The following issues were discussed at the meeting: The corner treatment at the intersection of Ynez and Winchester Road: The applicant was directed to provide more "pizazz"at the corner. Pine trees or native Oak Trees were recommended instead of the palm trees which were proposed. It was also recommended that a water feature be worked into the treatment. Perimeter landscaping (along Winchester, Ynez and Margarita Roads): The applicant requested they be allowed to use evergreen trees in addition to the deciduous trees required under the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The Committee was open to their suggestions. Parking lot landscaping: After a great deal of discussion, this issue remained unresolved at the meeting. The Specific Plan requires a minimum of 50% of the parking stalls be shaded. The applicant is proposing the use of trees in parking lots nearest to the R:\STAFFRPT\I18PA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd 2 buildings and no landscaping closer to the ring road. They desire to limit the number of trees in the parking lot for the following reasons: Overall security in the parking lot. A large number of trees will obscure the parking lot lighting. Cost. The applicant would prefer to spend monies on landscaping in the entertainment area. Dollars spent for parking lot landscaping would take away from those spent in the entertainment area. Visibility. The Department Stores require visibility from the street and landscaping obscures the visibility. Parking lot shading is provided for the spaces most often used. Peak shopping demand at the mall is typically between Thanksgiving and Christmas. For the majority of the year, only the parking spaces closest to the mall are utilized; and therefore, only these they need to be shaded. The applicant stated the amount of trees proposed on their plan far exceeds the number of trees planted at a typical regional mall. Commissioner Soltysiak and Miller stated they would visit other regional malls in the area to determine the number of trees used on other projects. Staff visited the malls at Moreno Valley and North County Fair, and it was our observation that landscape coverage at these malls is well below 20%. Photos of the malls were taken and will be shown at the Commission hearing. Since this item remains unresolved, the Commission will need to discuss this item at the hearing. Sears and Sears Auto Center Elevations At the June 2, 1997 Planning Commission hearing, the architect for the Sears Department Store and Sears Auto Service Center was directed to re-visit the proposed elevations and color and materials for the project. Specific direction from the Commission included: Select designs which are more consistent and complimentary to the mall. Vary the roof heights of the Department Store, similar to the mall and Robinsons-May Department Store. Soften the colors used on the buildings. Delete the blue stripe from the Auto Service Center. The architect re-submitted revised plans for Staff review. Based upon initial review of the re- submittal, staff feels that the applicant has made minimal changes to his plans, as follows: Stonework that matches the mall has been added to the base of the building. The color palette has been changed to coordinate with the mall. The east entry element has been raised from one-story to two-story in order to break up the parapet line and to present more of an entry statement. Bands have been added to the building. The Sears Auto Center elevations have changed markedly with building bands, the use of glass windows and doors and a more articulated entry. R:\STAFFRFr~I18PA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd 3 Basically, the applicant still proposes to use the Sears corporate statement design. There has been some movement in the colors, materials and building facades. However, the applicant is not desirous to change the prototypical design concept, including the tower element. The applicant has provided photos, showing the proposed design in both the evening and daytime. The photographs show that the entry facades are not flat, but present a rounded plane, giving contour and relief to its surface. Should the Commission choose to approve the Sears Elevations, Color and Material Board and landscape plan, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval be added to the project: (The Exhibit letters will be determined by Staff after the hearing.) Add after General Requirements section: Building elevations for Sears and the Sears Auto Service Center shall conform substantially with Exhibit __, and Exhibit __ (color elevations) or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used for Sears and the Sears Auto Service Center shall conform substantially with Exhibit __, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Materials Colors Accent on eyebrow canopy STO Industries VT70262 White Field on entrance element VT70263 Light Beige Accent on base & trim VT70265 Dark Beige Field on main building VT70264 Medium Beige Auto center accent band & eyebrow canopy STO Industries Blue to match Sears sign Storefront doors Anodized aluminum Permanodic Clear No. 17 Storefront Aluminum Duranar Finish: Bone White Wainscot on main building Adoquin de Cantera Gray Group 1 Landscaping for the Sears Department Store and the Sears Auto Service Center shall conform substantially with Exhibit __, as approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. Sidewalk Plan The applicant was directed by the Commission to refine the sidewalk plan. In addition, they stated they wanted to re-visit the locations where the sidewalk crossed the ring road for safety reasons. A revised sidewalk plan was submitted and is before the Planning Commission for their review and approval. Lighting Plan Staff will meet with the applicant and assist him in achieving compliance with lighting requirements for the project. R:\STAFFRPT\llSPA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd 4 FAX from Sam Pratt Staff received a ten (10) page FAX from Sam Pratt during the preparation of this staff report, which is Attachment 3. Due to its late arrival, Staff is unable to respond at this time, but will be prepared to respond at the Commission hearing. Attachments: 3. PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 12 Exhibits - Blue Page 24 A. Mall and Power Center Site Plan, Ultimate Development (KA Architects SP-1) Site Plan, Initial Development (KA Architects SP-2) Sidewalk Plan (KA Architects SP-3) Elevations Conceptual Landscape Plan (Mesa Design Group 01, 02, 03) Color and Material Board (KA Architects Sample Board) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Sears 1) 2) 3) 4) Site Plan (Architects Pacifica SK 0) Elevations (Architects Pacifica SK 3 & 4) Landscape Plan (Architects Pacifica PL1) Color and Material Board Sam Pratt Correspondence dated June 30, 1997 - Blue Page 25 R:\STAFFRPT\118PA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd 6 Aq'TACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN - MALL AND POWER CENTER SITE PLAN, MALL AND POWER CENTER ELEVATIONS, MALL AND POWER CENTER LANDSCAPE PLAN, MALL AND POWER CENTER COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARDS, ROBINSONS- MAY SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN, ROBINSONS-MAY ELEVATIONS, ROBINSONS-MAY COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD, SEARS SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN, SEARS ELEVATIONS, AND SEARS COLOR AND MATERIAL BOARD) ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 133.5 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD, EAST OF YNEZ ROAD, WEST OF MARGARITA ROAD, AND NORTH OF THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-130-047, 910- 130-052, 910-130-053, 910-130-054, 921-090-048, 921-090-051, 921-090-053, 921-090-056 WI-1EREAS, Forest City Development, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA97~0118 (Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) on June 2, 1997, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) on June 2, 1997 to the June 16, 1997 Planning Commission hearing; WHEREAS, the applicant requested Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) be continued by the Planning Commission at their June 16, 1997 Planning Commission hearing; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission canceled their meeting on June 16, 1997; R:\STAFFRPT\l18PA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd 7 WIW~REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) on July 7, 1997, at a duly noticed public heating as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development 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. Section 2. Findirlgs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) makes the following findings; to wit: 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's General Plan, Specific Plan No. 263, and Ordinance No. 96-24 (An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula, California approving a Development Agreement (Planning Application No. PA96-0333) between the City of Temecula, Forest City Development California, Inc. And LGA-7, Inc.). 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The Planning Commission hereby further finds and determines that the Project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review and that no additional environmental review is needed for the following reasons: A. On July 13, 1993, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 93-57 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 340 with addendum, adoption of the Statements of Overriding Consideration and approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program on property located. at the southeast comer of Ynez and Winchester Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No(s) 910-130-046, 047; 921-090-001, 002, 003, 004, 005, and 006," certifying the Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 263 and Zone Change 5589 for the Property. B. Additionally, on October 11, 1994, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 94-100 entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula adopting the addendum to the FEIR No. 340; to adopt an addendum to FEIR No. 340 including a new Mitigation Monitoring Program and determining R:\STAFFRPTXllSPA97.PC3 712197 cd 8 no additional impacts as a result of changing the circulation mitigation measures located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Ynez Road and Winchester Road." The Council found at this time that the proposed specific plan and zone change did not change any of the impacts identified in F£IR No. 340, none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR had occurred, only minor technical changes or additions were necessary to make FEIR No. 340 adequate under CEQA, and the changes to the EIR by the Addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. C. The Staff of the Planning Department has prepared an Initial Environmental Study, dated May 15, 1997 analyzing the proposed Development Plan and the prior environmental actions on the Project, which Initial Study is incorporated herein by this reference. D. The proposed Development Plan incorporates the provisions of the City's General Plan, Specific Plan No. 263, the current zoning regulations for the Property, the Mitigation Plan of Environmental Impact Report No. 340 and such other ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvement, development fees, and construction standards applicable to the Property. All of the components of the proposed Development Plan which might affect the environment were discussed and analyzed in FEIR 340. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for the Amendment unless required by 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15161 or 15163. E. Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration of the evidence, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that neither a Subsequent EIR a Supplemental EIR, nor further environmental review is required for the Development Plan pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163, based on the following findings of the Planning Commission: F. The elements of the Project as described in the Development Plan were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the EIR certified and approved by the City Council on July 13, 1993 and the Addendum thereto approved on October 11, 1994 for the approval of Specific Plan 263 and Zone Change 5589. G. There have been no subsequent changes to the Project since October 11, 1994 which would require major revisions of the previous FEIR and Addendum due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. H. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR and Addendum due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. R:\STAFFRPT\llSPA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd 9 I. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that the Project might have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR and Addendum. J. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that significant effects previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR and Addendum. K. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. L. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR and Addendum would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan - Mall and Power Center Site Plan, Mall and Power Center Elevations, Mall and Power Center Landscape Plan, Mall and Power Center Color and Material Boards, Robinsons-May Site/Landscape Plan, Robinsons-May Elevations and Robinsons-May Color and Material Board) on a parcel containing 133 acres located south of Winchester Road, east of Ynez Road, west of Margarita Road, and north of the future extension of Overland Drive and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-130-047, 910-130-052, 910-130-053, 910-130-054, 921-090-048, 921-090-051, 921-090-053, 921-090-056 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. R:\STAFFRPT\I18PA97.PC3 712/97 ed 10 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of July, 1997. Linda Fahey, Chairman 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 7th day of July, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPT\I18PA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd 1 1 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT\llgPA97.PC3 7/2/0"/cd 12 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA97-0118 (Development Plan) Project Description: The design and construction of a 1,019,846 square foot regional mall, a 403,000 square foot power center {retail), a 80,000 square foot cinema and 235,000 square feet of future retail space on 133.5 acres Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 910-130-047, 910-130-052, 910-130-053, 910-130-054, 921-090-048, 921-090-051,921-090-053, 921-090-056 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition. General Requirements The Applicants and Owners of each parcel within the subdivision, jointly and severally, shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA97- 0118 (Development Plan), which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo_., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the Applicant and Owners of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, Applicant and Owners shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. R:\STAFFRPT\llSPA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd ].3 o This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D (Site Plan - Ultimate Development), as approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118, or as amended by these conditions. a. A minimum of 6,904 parking spaces shall be provided. b. A minimum of 121 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in accordance with the City's Development Code. Access from the outlots to the ring road shall be limited to a maximum of one (1) per outlot building. Outlot buildings shall be generally located as close as possible to the public streets to provide a distinctive streetscape. Parking for the outlots shall be primarily oriented toward the ring road and mall. fo Areas identified for future expansion shall be approved by the Community Development Director if the elevations are consistent with the previously approved elevations for the project. If the elevations are not consistent, the Community Development Director may take the plans for the proposed expansion before the Planning Commission for review and approval. Landscaping for the mall, power center and outlots shall conform substantially with Exhibit E (Conceptual Landscape Plan) and E-1 (Landscape Enlargements), as approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. Landscaping for each component of the project shall be installed prior to the Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the specific component. Per the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, a 50% minimum average actual parking stall (space) area shall be shaded. The applicant shall submit landscape plans to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval which reflect this requirement prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Mall or Power Center component of the project, whichever comes first. As an alternative the applicant may file for review and receive approval of a Specific Plan Amendment prior to the issuance of any building permit. R:\STAFFRPT\118PA97.PC3 712197 cd 14. 10. 11. All disturbed and unbuilt areas which will have interim landscaping shall be landscaped in accordance with the City's Development Code. Sidewalks shall be installed in accordance with Exhibit F (Sidewalk Plan). Building elevations for the Mall shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, and Exhibit H (color elevations) or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used for the Mall shall conform substantially with Exhibit I, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Materials Cloth (Canopy) Aluminum (Storefront) Metal (Entry) Roof Cap Sheet Glass (Vision) Glass (Spandrel) Stucco (Walls) Stucco (Accent) Stucco (Accent) Stone (Capital, Column, Accent) Concrete (Walkways) Concrete (Entertainment Plaza and Entryways) Stone (Walkways) Colors Sherwin Williams #SW1468 (Tourmaline) Sherwin Williams #SW1320 (Tasteful Tan) Sherwin Williams #SW2419 (Tempest Blue) Sherwin Williams #SW1462 (Park Bench) Ford (Ford Blue) Ford (Dark Blue) Sherwin Williams #SW 1074 (Ostrich Feathers) Sherwin Williams #SW1316 (Winnipeg Sand) Sherwin Williams #1066 (Salmon Suede) Adonquin de Cantera Natural Gray Terra Cotta #406, #400 and #408 Building elevations for the Power Center shall conform substantially with Exhibit J, and Exhibit K (color elevations) or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used for the Power Center shall conform substantially with Exhibit L, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Materials Aluminum (Storefront) Metal (Grill) Metal (Roof) Glass (Vision) Stucco (Walls) Stucco (Accent) Stucco (Accent) Stone (Capital, Column, Accent) Stucco (Cornice) Stucco (Walls) Stucco (Walls) Concrete (Building Base) Concrete (Roof) Color~ Sherwin Williams #SW1320 (Tasteful Tan) Sherwin Williams #SW2419 (Tempest Blue) Sherwin Williams #SW1462 (Park Bench) Ford (Ford Blue) Sherwin Williams #SW 1074 (Ostrich Feathers) Sherwin Williams #SW1316 (Winnipeg Sand) Sherwin Williams #1066 (Salmon Suede) Adonquin de Cantera Sherwin Williams #SW 1109 (Aria Ivory) Sherwin Williams #SW1106 (Whole Grain) Sherwin Williams #1111 (Kaffe Tan) To Match Adonquin de Cantera Monier #12600 (Vermont Green) Landscaping for Robinsons-May shall conform substantially with Exhibit M, as approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0118, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the satisfaction R:\STAFFRPT\118PA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. 12. Building elevations for Robinsons-May shall conform substantially with Exhibit N, and Exhibit O (color elevations) or as amended by these conditions. 13. Colors and materials used for Robinsons-May shall conform substantially with Exhibit P, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Materials Stone (Entrance) Stone (Entrance) Stone (Entrance) Plaster/Stucco (Walls) Plaster/Stucco (Walls) Plaster/Stucco (Walls) Aluminum (Canopy and Storefront) Concrete (Walkways) Concrete (Walkways) Colors Ameristone //17 (Sedona Red) Ameristone //13 (Woodbury Pink) Ameristone //14 (White Ash) Sherwin Williams SW 1067 Sherwin Williams SW 1065 Sherwin Williams SW 1064 Clear Anodized Aluminum Natural Concrete Chromix Admixture //5234 14. Prior to any application submittal for any of the periphery developments along Winchester and Ynez Roads, Pads A, B, and C, Major Retail F, G, H, and I, the applicant shall submit five (5) copies of a Design Manual for review by the Community Development Department - Planning Division and approval by the Planning Commission. Said Design Manual shall enumerate the design elements which are appropriate for the development. The applicant shall pay the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). The Community Development Director shall have the authority to approve any development which is consistent with the Design Manual without a public hearing. The fee for those projects which are consistent with the Design Manual shall be the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). If the Director determines the project is not consistent with the Design Guidelines, or the project would require a Conditional Use Permit (per Specific Plan No. 263), the matter will be set for a Planning Commission hearing and the appropriate full Application Fee will be required. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 15. If the project is to be built in phases, the applicant shall submit a phasing to include: a site plan, sidewalk plan and landscape plan to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the issuance of a precise grading plan. 16. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation). 17. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No. 263/EIR No. 340 have been satisfied for this stage of the development. R:\STAFFRPT\lI8PA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd 16 Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 18. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid for each of the following components of the project: Mall, Power Center, Outlots, Department Stores, Cinema, Plaza, Entertainment Plaza Retail and 50,000 square foot retail. 19. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the mall or power center, whichever comes first, three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans (minimum 1 "= 50' scale) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. In addition, all major and minor entry features and monumentation and the corner landscape and monumentation features (Winchester and Ynez Roads and Winchester and Margarita Roads) shall be included on the plans. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: ao Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). 20. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Robinsons-May, Sears, the Sears Auto Service Center, Anchor Numbers 3 and Anchor Numbers 4, the Cinema, the area identified as "future 50,000 square feet retail," and each of the outlots, the applicant(s) shall submit three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans (minimum 1"=50' scale) to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). 21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any future expansions to the anchors or cinema identified on Exhibit D, or any other component of the project, the applicant(s) shall submit a Development Plan to the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Said Development Plan shall be accompanied by the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). R:\STAFFRPT\llgPA97.PC3 712197 cd 17 22. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No. 263/EIR No. 340 have been satisfied for this stage of the development. 23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for either the plaza area, the cinema or the area identified on Exhibit D as "Entertainment Plaza Retail" (whichever comes first), a detailed site and landscape plan (1"=20' scale) shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for review and approval. The plan should attempt to incorporate many of the following amenities into the plaza area: planter boxes w/trees and seating area, benches, stage area, tables, chairs, shade structures to include trellises w/vines & misters, shaded turf open space, awnings, shaded seating areas, street lamps, trash receptacles, a fountain/water feature, art/sculptures, a variety of color, hanging plants, seasonal color (plantings), decorative bollards, enhanced paving areas, archways/gateways, outdoor movie screen, a gazebo, outdoor vendor carts, heaters, fans, and clock(s). 24. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Cinemas, JC Penney's, Anchor No. 4 and the area identified as "50,000 retail," each applicant shall submit a Development Plan application for review by the Community Development Department - Planning Division and approval by the Planning Commission. Said Development Plan application shall be accompanied by the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 25. Prior to the Issuance of the first Occupancy Permit, the applicant shall submit five (5) copies of a Sign Program for the project to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval by the Planning Manager. The sign program shall address appropriate colors, materials, heights and locations for the signage (wall-mounted, monument and directional) and shall be accompanied by the fee for a Development Plan (under 10,000 square feet, not subject to CEQA), or equivalent (if superseded). 26. Prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy for the site, all major and minor entry features and monumentation shall be installed. The corner landscape and monumentation features (Winchester and Ynez Roads and Winchester and Margarita Roads) shall be installed. 27. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view from adjacent public streets. 28. Prior to the Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for each component of the project, sidewalks shall be installed for that component. 29. Prior to the Certificate of Occupancy for each component of the project, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed in accordance with approved landscape and irrigation plan and be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. R:\STAFFRPT\l18PA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd 18 30. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 31. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for each component of the project. 32. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 33. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No. 263/EIR No. 340 have been satisfied for this stage of the development. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 34. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 35. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plans for approval. 36. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 37. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 38. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations and must be fully detailed for plan check submittal. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). R:\STAFFRPT\I18PA97.PC3 7/2/97 ed 19 39. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 40. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 41. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C and State of California Title 24, Part 2 Accessibility Standards. 42. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system in accordance with Building and Fire Codes. 43. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 44. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 45. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record, the truss manufacturer's engineer are required for plan review submittal. 46. Provide an approved precise grading plan with plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. General Requirements 47. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 48. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 49. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and landscape and irrigation plans and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 50. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and City of Temecula Standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The grading plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. R:\STAFFRPT\I18PA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd 20 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Fish & Game Army Corps of Engineers The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to or deferred by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. tf the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. R:\STAFFRPT~llSPA97.PC3 712197 cd 21 60. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. 61. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 62. Parcel Map 28530 shall be approved and recorded. 63. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 64. The Developer/Owner shall pay the Development Mitigation Fee in compliance with Planning Application No. PA96-0333 (Development Agreement); the terms as identified in Section (3) of Item 6 the Agreement. This fee is in lieu of the signal mitigation and development impact fees. 65. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City of Temecula Standard No. 113. d. All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section. e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 66. The Developer shall construct the following improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. a. On-site traffic control devices as appropriate Storm drain facilities, except as otherwise provided for in Planning Application No. PA96-0333 (Development Agreement) c. Sewer and domestic water systems R: \STAFFRPT\I 18PA97.P(23 7/2/97 cd 22 67. On-site bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA) and approved by the Department of Public Works. 68. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 69. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District 70. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 71. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. OTHER AGENCIES 72. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March 24, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 73. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated April 28, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 74. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Fire Department's transmittal dated May 20, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California Department of Transportation's transmittal dated April 29, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 76. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated April 28, 1997, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Applicant's Signature R:\STAFFRPT\llSPA97.PC3 7/2/97 ed 23 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRPT\llgPA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd 24 I IN31~ctO93^3a ~ f .~ iT i ......... Jl } .,n~ ~_ E L t~ t ! L_ ~111_i "1 '-Illll . 9[006 ¥INk[O~IFIVq 'SZIa~NV SOq 00[ 3£IQS ',1,~I~f£?q HlFIOg 61~6 S~£VlOOggV H3&N~: ,O~L V1QO31~I3£ VIN~{O~IFIVO · H~£N~D qVNOID3H VqF]DF~IN3£ . __~~~ i~_Z~ .......................... f I L Z Z Z Z 0 Z Z l II TEMI~CuLA TOWNr' CENTER TF'M EC UI_A. CALIF'ORNIA [l ill IRVIN[='. CALIFORNIA Exhibit B1 Tit MECULA, CALIFORNIA ARCHITECTS IRVINE:, CALIFORNIA Exhibit B2 PACI F.ICA LTD TEMECULA TOWNE CENTER TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA ARCHITECTS PACI F'ICA LTD IRVINI=', CALIFORNIA Exhibit B2 T£MECULA. CALII~ORNIA ,/ ARCHITECTS F::~AC I F'I CA ~RvIN E:. CALl F'OI~NIA Exhibit B3 ~ S I ' ,, ;: lI l" ,l/ ....i ~ ~ II l*I TEMECULA TOWhiE CENTER TEMECULA. CALIFORNIA Exhibit B4 ARCHITECTS IRVINE, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT NO. 3 SAM PRATT CORRESPONDENCE DATED JUNE 30, 1997 R:\STAFFRPT\llSPA97.PC3 7/2/97 cd 25 Company: Fax number: Business phone: From: Fax number: Business phone: Home phone: Date & Time: Pages: Re: A X · Reformer City Manager - Ron Bradley +1 (909) 694-1999 Sam Pratt +1 (909) 699-8689 6/30/97 1:36:55 PM 10 Traffic Impact Forest City Mall 063097 Dear Mr. Bradley: Please see the attached letter in support of my position on the above subject. Refferences to your etter of 6/20~97, and A.S. Pratt letter to the Planning Cornmission of 06/02/97 am not attached. A signed odginal copy of this information was mailed today Certified to your oilice. Albert. S. Pratt ALBERT $. PRA~r 40470 Brixton Cove Temecula, CA 92591 California Registration: Civil Engineer No. 7697 Structural Engineer No. 650 (909)699-8689 Monday, June 29, 1997 Mr. Ronald Bradley City Manager City of Temecula The Temecula City Council The Temecula Planning Coanuission Th~ Temecula Redevelopment Agency 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 FAX694-1999 Subject: Traffic Impact of the Proposed Forest City Mall, Requires a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21166 Co), (c). CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, 15163. Reference: Your Letter of June 20. 1997 (Attached) 3.8. Pratt Letter to Temecula Planning Commission of June 2, 1997, including April 23, 1996 letter on traffic (Attached) Dear Mr. Bradley, Members of the Temecula City Council, and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency: Thank you for the courtesy of your time in preparing your above r~ferenced letter and the offer of assistance of Mathew Fagan, Associate Planner. I was very disappointed by the action of the Temecula City Council in rejecting the recommendations of City Staff with regard to builder mitigation fees. In my opinion, this is a major mistake in judgement, and may well have to be reversed. I am presenting my views on the above subject for your review. Should City Slaffwish to discuss any matter presented, I will be pleased to cooperate. I support the concept of the Forest City Mall, and I believe it will enhance the image of Temecula. However, there is a price to pay for anything of this magnitude in the City due to its unique location- Temecula is fortunate to offer climate, physical beauty, and a dedication to services for the youth and, seniors of the community (not to mention the Ciiy's effort to accelerate Old Town Temecula enhancement!). The Environmental Impact Report (EIR), used in support of the Forest City Mall, was originally prepared for a hypothetical commercial project to be used by the developer in marketing the property. The mitigation of traffic congestion resulting in acceptable Level Of Service (LOS) at major intersections was based on inaccurate assumptions of compounded traffic growth. The mitigation measures in the E1R may take years to accomplish and then will be unacceptable due to an inaccurate h'afiSc growth factor. I recommend a minimum compounded annual traffic growth factor of g°/~ The step by step "piecemeal" approach to traffic mitigation will place the citizens of Temecula, Murrieta and the "sphere of influence" in an area traffic gridlock for years if not indefinitely caused by an inaccurate compounded traffic growth assumption, not based on existing conditions, and a phasing in of inadequate planned mitigation measures. CEQA requires that the EIR be certified within 150 days from the end of the public comment period. I am requesting the dates of the end of the Public Comment Period, filing of the Notice of Determination, when the EIR was Certified, and the EIR filed with the State Clearing House. The former proposed Murrieta Mall at the "Golden Triangle" site offered the minimum traffic congestion impact on the Cities ofTemecula, Murrieta and the "sphere of influence". CEQA requires a feasibility study and conclusion of the acceptance or rejection of an alternative site. No alternate site was considered inthe EIR. The location of the proposed Forest City Mall is geographically unfortunate as city and southwest county growth is focusing on Temecula as ~he '~al~ic congestion hub (TCH)". With increased traffic congestion is the specter of"smo~' levels exceeding required health limits, and mitigation of the traffic circulation problem will be costly and difficult Two ~ate highway arteries are undeniable, Highway 79S and Highway 79N. These two highways will funnel traffic into Temecula ~om proposed, and increasing development to the south east, and ~om increasing proposed major county residential development from the no~theasL Shortly, the reereation~l traffic to, and from the Domenigoni Reservoir will be beyond comprehension. 1-15 access to Temecula at Winchester and Rancho California will provide access to the Mall from the south, north and west, Rancho California will be additionally burdened due to traffic bypassing the Winchester Mall access because of congestion burdening the Ynez corridor to the north for return to the Mall. Highway 79S traffic will exacerbate the present "in city traffic" by burdening Marguefita Road to the Mall, Butterfield 8tage Road to Rancho California Road and continued access to the Mall, and access through residential areas using the Ranchires access Roads. Access to the proposed Mall through the Meadowview subdivision can be expedited by using the main internal ring roads of Via Norte and Dei Rey exiting via North General Kearney to the Mall. The Meadowview ring roads would be accessed via Avenida Barca and Pina Colada. Rancho California/Moraga Road Intersection: Moraga to and from Margarita Road, Pauba Road and Rancho Vista Road to and from Margarita Road, Butterfield Stage Road and the intersections with SR79S, Pauba Road, and Rancho California Road, Ynez Road between Santiago Road and Margarita Road, will be burdened with additional traffic generated by the Mall. 5. The Rancho California Road and Margarita Road Imersextion traffic will be exacerbated by additional to and from Mall generated traffic. In order to expedite access to the Mall early access will be attempted at the Highway ?9S/I-15 interchange using Front Street to the Santiago Overpass then Ynez Road to the Mall, making reducing the LOS (Loss Of S~rvice) at Rancho California Road and Ynez to an unmitigable LOS. 7, The City of Temecula Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) of February 12, 1992, page 112, indicate 10 intersections and the traffic counl~ All of the traffic counts at each intersection have been exceeded. Page 115 of the (MEA) indicat~ 36 'truersections with AM and PM Peak Hour (LOS). These (LOS) have been exceeded at every one of the 32 intersections. The (LOS) at Winchester Road/Ynez Road is shown as 23.6 seconds (LOS C) during the AM Peak Hour and 28.4 seconds (LOS D) during the PM Peak Hour. On Monday 3une 23, 1997, at 4:19 PM the installed traffic signal at this intersection was personally timed by Albert 5. Pratt and found to be 1 minute and 30 seconds. The Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 1985, (used for Reference in the Old Town Center EIR), Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections, LOS "F" is interpreted as "Total breakdown with stop-and-go operations" and gives a delay greater than :> 60 seconds. All of the major intersections servicing lhe proposed Forest City Mall will require intersection LOS mitiga~iom An intersection LOS < "F" (unacceptable level of service) will be difficult to impossible to s"sin. The specter of accumulated LOS exists in east and west directions from the Winchester/Ynez intersection to the Winchester Jefferson intersection and ~om the Rancho California/Ynez intersection to the Rancho California Road/$efferson/Front gtrcet intersection 10. The citizens ofTemecula, Murrieta and the "sphere of influence' should be advised of this possibility and asked if they are willing to acxept the Mall causing inde£mite increasing traffic congestion with the attending "smog". 11. The Regional Specific Plan//263, Volume I, paragraph IlL i. (4): 1-15/Winchester Road" ..... safe and efficient circulation system composed of a not work of planned local roadways designed for appropriate traffic and user needs'. 12. The Regional Specific Plan//263, Volume I, Mitigation Monitoring Program, paragraph L, Circulation, l.ines 27, 28, 29 - does not address existingm~ffic nor projected area traffic - based on a realistic and current compounded traffic growth rate. 13. Temecula Regional Center DraR Specific Plan//263, EIR//340 - - - "Margarita Road - will be major access (4 Lanes) for majority of Temecula residents south and east of proposed Mall. The Margarita Corridor, from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to SR79S, serves at least 50% of the population of Temecula including the Vail Ranch and 14. The Margarita Corridor has four (4) public schools. Joan Sparkman Elementary School, Temecula Valley High School, Temecula Middle School and the Temecula Elementsty School. A major proposed sports park is planned adjacent to the Temecula Elementary School. The Temecula Sports Park and Recreation Center on Rancho Vista and Margarita Road. The increased traffic generated by the Mall will increase the hazards of traffic accidents to the school children, and those participating in sports and recreation activities. 15. Gt~n-al Keamey Road is indicated as major access to the Mall directly impactin~ all of the residents of the Meadowview Subdivision 16. Page 124 of the (MEA), City of Temecula Capital Improvement Program (1992-96), it is now 1997, includes 12 significant transportation improvements over the next five years. Of the 12 listed only 4 have been completed. 17. The City ofTemecula 'Temecula Traffic News', June, 1997. "From the day the city was incorporated, traffic has been the major issue in Temecula, therefore the City has dedicated a major share of its resources to improving traffic circulation". Of the 5 projects described to improve the traffic congestion of Temecula only 1, th~ Winchester Road Interchange has been completed. From the EIR data available these improvements were based on traffic forecasts that are out dated and do not reflect the compounded traffic growth of the area. 1 g. Eventual completion of these facilitie~ without an updated traffic analysis will do little to mitigtae future traffic congestion, cost taxpayers an immense amount of money a portion of which might better be spent on traffic evaluation coupled with a review ofthe cost effectiveness of the proposed stn~ctures. 19. Substantial money (Over $500,000)has been invested inthe design of the Western Bypass Corridor Phase I. This first phase will further exacerbate the trs~c congestion at the Rancho California Road/I-15 Interchange and the intersections immediately to the east_ No further work should be done until funding of the original Riverside County planned Western Bypass from I-15 on the south to 1-15 to the northwest is completed and available. 20. The original E~R covering this project used projected tra~c data based on an inaccurate compounded growth factc~ the traffic generated by this proposed project and will further exacerbate traffic congestion caused by the proposed Forest City Mall. 2l. Recent statements in the news media comment on the possibility of a change in the Buffman/FirestoneYmisccllancous investors Entertainment Project to be developed around a short portion of the proposed Western Bypass. This short portion, ending at Rancho California Road, was not contemplated in the original concept of the Riverside County General Plan for an artery to carry ~rffic "around" the City of Temecula. 22. I did not accept the mitigation measures prepared for traffic control which were a part of the ~Focuscd" EIR for the Old Town Entertainment Center as they were based on ~* that did not represent the compounded annual traffic growth of Temecula, nor did it consider the "sphere of Influence". 23. The further "in city" development of the residential areas of Paloma dol $ol, Vail Ranch, and Red Hawk will compound the traffic congestion on SR 795, and the many accesses to the Mall from thes~ areas. The Rainbow Canyon villages will be severely impacted. 24. The future exter~sions of Ynez road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and Diaz Road through to the City of Murietta. Present intersections that will suffer a major Loss Of Service (LOS) in the City of Murrieta are Marguarita and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, the Murrieta Hot Springs Roads off and on ramps at 1-215 and 1-15 and Murrieta Hots Springs Road at Jefferson. 25. Major residential development of the SR79N corridor is now underway inthe French Valley are~ 26. The Wilbur Smith and Associates Report Update of January 31, 1997 - a 10 year period of study focused on the immediate area around the Mall - Winchester - Jefferson Ave./Margarita Road, Ynez Road - Margarita Road to Rancho California Road, Margarita Road - Winchester to Solram Way, Rancho California Road - from 1- 15 Interchange to Ynez Road. 27. The tro. ffic projections are based on a compounded traffic growth rate of 20/a My field checks at the time of investigating the EIR prepared for the BufFman Entertainment Center indicated 8.5*/0, an increase in the comoounded rate of 425 %. The Wilbur Smith and Associates Report of January 31, 1997, is not based on existing conditions and, therefore, is not a valid forecast or mitigation of~raffic congestion. 28. The NCHRP Report 255 is a recommended source for post processing modeling results. "- - - that the use of unadjusted model volumes is kighly discouraged." 29. Consistency Guidelines for Transportation Modeling and Traffic Forecasting Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, January 1995, Traffic Refinement and Refinement Using NCHRP Report 255 Proceedures. "However, great caution should be used before peak hour forecasts are reported. Where major new facilities have been added between the validation year and the forecast year, ..... 30. Further confirmation of a compounded traffic growth can supported by the annual growth in population, voter registration, vehicle fees and number of vehicle California State license plates. 31. The compounded population growth rate based on yearly population totals for the City of Temecula from 1990 through 1996, as published in the 1995 1996, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) give a compounded annual growth rate ofg.5% > 2.0% in the above referenced Wilbur Smith Report. 32. The California Department of Finance has a compounded population growth rate for City of Tomecula of 9.3°/0, 4.65 timea the projected traffic growth rate of 2%. 33. During the one year period beiween the 1995 CAFR and the 1996 CAFR there was a 23.3% growth in the number of registered voters. 34. Southwest Area Planning District (SWAPD) Travel Forecast Model Pilot, Phase 1 Area Mode[, Vali~6on Report, July lg, 1996, Table 3, Trip Assignment Validation is an analysis of traffic congestion forecast for the year 2015. The following areas are NOT Within Tolerable Limits: 1. Jefferson Avenue (S/O Murrieta Hot Springs Road) 2. Jefferson Avenue (N/O Winchester Rd.) 3. Winchester Road (E/O Jefferson Ave.) 4. Winchester Road(E/O 1-15) 5. Benton Road (W/O Washington Road) 6. Benton Road ( E/O Winchester R& 7. Rancho California Road (E/O Margarita Road) 8. Clinton Keith Road (E/O 1-215) 9. Murritea Hot Springs Road(E/O 1-215) 10. Rancho California Road (E/O 1-15) 11. Interstate 15 (S/O SR 79 $) 12. Pala Road ($/O SR 79 S) 13. Murrieta Hot Springs Road ((E/O Jefferson Ave.) 14. Los Alamos road (E/O Jefferson Ave.) 15. Kalmia Road (W/O Jefferson Ave.) 16. Diaz Road (N/O Rancho California Rd.) 17. Jefferson Ave. (S/O/Overland Dr.) 18. Interstate 15 (N/O Rancho California Rd.) 19. Ynez Road (S/O/Winchaser 20. Ynez Road (S/O/Solana Way) 21. Front Street (S/O Rancho California Rd.) The above 21 locations indicate the forecasted areas of congestion for the year 2015. The impact of the proposed Forest City Mall brings a deterrent or '~raffi¢ dam' to the compounded traffic growth in the Tem¢cula/Murricta areas and the "sphere of influence' requ'n'ing an immediate cooperative effort to mitigate this problem I do not concur with the conclusion of the Temecula City Staffand City Attorney that the Preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Planning Application No. PA97-0118 ("mall project') is not required. This referenced planning application triggers all of the circumstances requiring the preparation of a subsequent EIR or supplement to the EIR as set fo~h in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. Research onthe Regional Specific Plan//263, GCPA #231, CZ//5589 Approvals, and Stato Clearing House #89020013, indica~s that the County Regional Plan EIR was received bythe SCH on 6/10/91 and ~ed on 7/25/91. The 5-year time on the original EIR would have lapsed after 7/25/96. No rin~_~ was available for the City of Temecula under SCH//89020013. Please furnish updated data to confirm the validity of the Environmental Impact Report (CEQA) and traffic addenda prepared By Wilbur Smith and Associates for the proposed Forest City Mall. I am aware flint the City of Temecula accepted the slams of Riverside County documentation at the time ofincorporatio~x My r~quest is for subsequen~ EIR documentation involving the approval of the proposed Forest City Mall. There ar~ endless combinations of routes to the Mall from areas inside outside the city, but all affect our local area ~affic congestion Wo have no comrol over traffic congestion on the Interstate and $tato. Highways. We can plan to make lraffic life bearable for Temecula citizon~ We must work with our neighbors in the "sphere of influence". We must plan cooperatively now!. One might say that we have two choices, no Mall or a City and a "sphere of influence* with some semblance of traffic control. I made an initial short review of the 1994 EIR for the property now being considered for the Forest City Mall, and the letters of Wilbur Smith and Associates indicating the Irafile could be mitigated. No Notice of a Public Heau'ing was advertised regarding the acceptance of the up date on traffic by Wilbur smith and Associates, and therefore, cannot be used as part of the EIR prepared by the Bedford Corporation to nmrket the property on which the proposed Mall is to be developeeL I do not support the conclusions. However, I am in favor of the concept ofthe Forest City Mall. For your consideration I suggest the following: 1. A moratorium on the issuance of all residetaia! and apamnent building permits in the Cities ofTemecula, Murrieta and the "sphere of influence* (controlled by Riverside County) until a separate traffic study is completed (understandable by the citizens, on how they will go from home to work, and return with out b~ing seriously impacted by traffic congestion generated by the Mail). 2. A moratorium on any further commercial construction on sites accessing the Margarita Corridor. 3. A current traffic count at selected intersections with the Mall tragic superimposed, and projected based on a compounded annual traffic count that reflects the current population, and traffic increase of the Tem¢cula areL Update based on new an_t_~ of the present and future LOS at all of the intersections impacted by the tra~c generated by the proposed Mall. This will affect the Mall traffic mitigation as proposed by Wilbur Smith and Associate~ Such modifications, and revisions will be made concurrently with the construction of the Mall to be in place at the completion of the initial phase. A minimum compounded annual traffic growth factor of 8%. Restore full builder mitigation fees to allow maximum funds for traffic mitigation. No further design or cons~ructiou on the balance of the structures described in the City ofTemecula ~Temecula Traffic News* until the cost effectiveness of these proposed structures is determined by an updated traflSc analysis. Revisiting the General Plan to consider the long-term effects oftfarine congestion (with solutions) on the quality of life of Temecula and to consider reducing the residential density of the city. A detailed interim traffic plan (with effective traffic flow signing) during the three year construction phase of the Forest City Mall allowing all traffic to circulate with a mln~lBm of COrlge~iOll and a tolerable LOS. In accordance with CEQA an updated lraflic mitigation plan wrilIen in 'plain language". 10. Working jointly with the City of Murrieta, Riverside County and representative 4 o members of the "sphere of influence" in the long-term acceptance ofthe solution of this matter. ' The resolution of this problem now, however onerous, will eliminate citizen disenchantment at a later date, and result in an acceptance of the Forest City Mall by the citizens of Temecula Valley without a *cloud of traffic conge~on*. As a currently Registered Civil Engineer, StaIe of California No.7697, I have the ~echnical education, and experience to suggest in consort with the City S~ffa plan to mitigate to the satisfaction of the area citizens, the specter of an area awash in traffic, and becoming citizen traffic prisoners in their own homes. Thank you for the courtesy of your time in reviewing this presentation. Sincerely yours, Albert S. Pratt Attachments: ce: Bob Buster, Supervisor, District 1, County of Riverside FAX (909) 275-1019 Mayor of the City of Murrieta and Murrieta City Council FAX 6984509 Chairman Murri~ Planning Commission FAX 6984509 Rod Spriggs - Murrieta Citizens for Responsible Growth Rita Gentry - Murrieta Citizens for Responsible Growth Caltrans, District 8 - Attn: Bob Harvey FAX (909) 383-7934 Western Riverside Conneff ofGovemments - Mr. Alan Crouse FAX (909) 787- 7991 SCAG - Attn: Michael Ainsworth FAX (909) 784-3923 The Californian The Press Enterprise, Temecula/Murrieta Edition, Carl Love Tim O'Leary The Press Enterprise, Riverside Edition, Dan Berstein The Rancho News Representative citizens in the "sphere of influence". Dr. David C. Robinson, D.O. FAX 698-2964 David Micheal - "The Villages" City of Temecula Joe Terrazas - Rainbow Canyon Villages Mr. and Mrs. James Philp - Glen Oaks Mr. and Mrs. Joel Banner - Redhawk FAX ATTACHMENT NO. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 2, 1997 R:\FORMS\$TAFFRPT.CC 7129197 klb 29 Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 1997 Commissioner Slaven asked if making a finding the CIP is in compliance with the General Plan, mean the Commission agrees to the prioritization given to the projects. She asked of the Commission has authority to change the priorities. Mr. Meyer replied the Commission is not agreeing to the priority ranking nor can they change a priority. Chairman Fahey stated in the finding, it suggests a majority of the listed roadway improvements are in the Circulation Plan, she asked if those would be different from, in conflict with, or add circulation to the General Plan. Mr. Meyer replied not every project is in the Circulation Plan; i.e, traffic signal projects, but none are in conflict with the General Plan. Commissioner Miller asked if priority one (1) projects will be completed or commenced during the next fiscal year. Mr. Meyer replied not all priority one (1) projects will commence during FY 97-98 because of design and environmental concerns. Commissioner Slaven asked how the Planning Commission can change the priorities of the signal at Pauba and Margarita Roads and the widening of Ynez Road to Number one. Community Development Director Gary Thomhill stated a City Council workshop will be held July 1, 6:30 PM and your participation is welcomed, either in person or in writing. Commissioner Webster noted the resolution title specifies FY 1998/2002, but the Background section in the staff report, FY 1997/2001. Mr. Meyer stated 1998/2002 is correct. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Webster, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 97-Next entitled "A Resolution of the Planning Commission for the City of Temecula Determining that the City of Temecula's FY 1998-2002 Capital Improvement Program is Consistent with the Adopted City General Plan." The motion was carried unanimously. PUBIC HEARING ITEMS 4. Planning Application PA97-0118 - Development Plan Community Development Director Gary Thomhill introduced the project. Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report on Site Plan, Circulation and Grading. Mr. Fagan passed out copies of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the previous EIR in response to Commissioner Webster's request. Commissioner Webster stated since this project will have a higher pro rata share of traffic, there should be some type of agreement regarding future mitigation costs if the owner of the remaining parcel develops his property and his traffic share exceeds the EIR. R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\6-2-97.WPD 6/30/97 klb 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 1997 City Attorney Weiner stated from a fairness point of view Commissioner Webster is correct; CEQA will require the next developer to perform an analysis if there is an impact beyond the original estimate. Commissioner Webster said whether or not a condition to require an agreement between property owners should be added will be discussed during Commission discussion. Commissioner Soltysiak questioned the type of land use for the remaining parcel. Mr. Fagan stated the Specific Plan shows the commercial core with support retail, mix use such as retail, office, hotel, residential, and business park. Commissioner Soltysiak asked, "since the first phase is taking up more traffic trips than originally estimated, what is the balance and what is the City's commitment for infrastructure support." Mr. Fagan stated the terms of the development agreement require the following improvements prior to the mall opening: deceleration/right-turn lanes on Winchester Road; Margarita Road improved to four-lanes with median to Solana Way; signal installed at Margarita Road and North General Kerney; Overland Road improved to four lanes between Margarita and Ynez Roads; and several drainage improvements. Department stores have a expressed a desire to open in late Fall 1998 with the mall itself in Spring 1999. Mr. Parks stated at a minimum, the City is proposing to have all the street work completed by the time the mall opens. Commissioner Soltysiak asked about the interim minimum landscaping around the ring road peripheral. Mr. Parks replied the pads will be graded for erosion control and there will be 750,000 yards of import dirt; the balance of the dirt will be on-site material. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if it balances with the force across the street. Mr. Parks replied it does according to the project engineer. Commissioner Slaven questioned the movement of dirt from Campos Verdes to this site being accomplished without creating a huge traffic jam on Margarita Road. Mr. Parks answered two open lanes of traffic are proposed in accordance with Public Works standards; probably it will require bridging the road surface similar to the method used at Winchester Road for transporting the dirt for the high school construction. Commissioner Slaven asked how will the traffic problem, created when the next section and the perimeter pads on the ring road are developed, be solved. Mr. Fagan replied the out lots are already part of the study and hopefully all the City's new infrastructure projects will work as planned. If a project on the remaining property comes in over the threshold, they will be subject to additional environmental review that may require mitigation measures, or they may not be able to build. If they go over the threshold, they have to come before the decision makers with a statement of overriding considerations, which was done for this project, for cumulative effect with the Campos Verdes project and Winchester Hills. Mr. Thornhill, the key conditions of approval of the Specific Plan are related to Overland Overcrossing which has been readdressed in the development agreement. When 750,000 sq. ft. of mall area is leased, the sale of the next series of bonds is triggered and a mechanism is in place R: \ PLANCOMM\MINUTES\ 1997 \ 6-2- 97. WPD 6/30/97 klb 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 1997 to get one of the key circulation improvements constructed. Most of Temecula's traffic problems are generated by buildout outside our area. Chairman Fahey asked if Overland Crossing is included in the traffic study. Mr. Thomhill replied Overland has always been addressed, but at different stages and the traffic study looked at both scenarios. Commissioner Webster asked about the 25-foot wide transportation corridor easement along Winchester Road. Mr. Thomhill replied it was part of the Southwest Area Plan and when the General Plan was developed, the easement was recognized. At that time it was assumed the easement might be needed someday for light rail or additional lanes, and it does provide insurance for possible future additional roadway. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 7:00 PM. Colm Macken, representing Forest City Development, gave brief overview of the project. Jim Heller, KA Architects, Cleveland, stated Phase 1 will consist of the three major department stores, the enclosed mall connecting those three, the entertainment component and theater, and the 785,000 sq. ft. power center. There may be some peripheral development (there were four occupants in a past project). He reported the changes which have occurred since the April 7, 1997 workshop are: an extensive sidewalk plan has been developed. The power center is now a totally unified cohesive plan; and entrances are being built to handle the shopping center at total buildout. He mentioned this is a two- level project with accessibility on both levels; at each department store there will be a graded and landscaped berm to provide upper and lower access. Bob Davis, Wilbur Smith Associates, traffic engineer, emphasized that at the time of the traffic study, assumptions included a power center or regional mall with mixed land uses and two alternatives were developed that had roughly the same number of daily trips. He said in terms of a traffic generation threshold, the mall's critical time period is the PM peak and. The higher pro rata share reference is to the PM peak trips. He said at total buildout, this mall will generate five more trips in the PM than what is shown in the original traffic study. If the remaining land use has higher morning or noon peak hour trips, it will fall within the threshold. The actual difference is between 2 1/2 to 5 % higher trips property. The proposed project's daily trips are 75% compared to 86% in the original plan. Chairman Fahey questioned how the study relates to Overland Crossing. Mr. Davis replied the original EIR assumed Overland was completed and assumed other large Specific Plans were also built out. Commissioner Webster mentioned the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the regional center had a provision for a formal park and ride and bike lanes and asked if either have been incorporated. Mr. Davis stated it was his understanding there is a bus pullout on the ring road and a drop off point, but no formal park and ride area; and bike lanes are being provided on perimeter roads as well as the roads leading into the mall; plus utilization of sidewalks is being studied. R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\6-2-97.WPD 6/30/97 klb 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 1997 Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, stated he supports the mall, but does not believe the environmental documents satisfactorily address the traffic problem as changed conditions have occurred since the initial EIR and a supplemental EIR must be prepared. He left a letter to be included in the record. Chairman Fahey asked if the mail is occupied in the fail of 1998, is it anticipated Overland will be completed within three years. Mr. Thomhill replied that is the plan, but other funding avenues are being sought to speed up construction of Overland Overcrossing. Commissioner Webster remarked the 25' easement is within a 37' wide landscaped buffer and building setback zone, and questioned if additional traffic lanes are needed, will a 12' building setback and landscaped zone be adequate. Mr. Fagan replied this is the standard established in the Specific Plan which are the perimeters we are working with at this time. Mr. Thomhill mentioned the City has contracted with Tom Dodson & Associates, paid for by the applicant, to oversee the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program to ensure compliance. Chairman Fahey asked if it would be appropriate to add a condition or plan to indicate a park and ride section on the site plan or should some of the extra parking spaces be designated park and ride. Mr. Fagan replied park and ride identification would be appropriate at this stage considering the mitigation is in the development agreement approvai stage. Chairman Fahey and Commissioner Webster stated they would like to see bike lanes on the ring road or some other access. Principal Engineer Parks said the ring road is not safe for bicyclists because of driveways and left-turn movements. Commissioner Webster stated he does not believe the bicycle problem is resolved by utilizing the sidewalk and not having a separate bike lane. Chairman Fahey reiterated some kind of linkage to existing bike lanes, especially those from the residential areas, is needed. Mr. Macken stated bike lanes are required on the perimeter roads; lanes on the ring road would be dangerous. He will research the park and ride facility but such a change requires going back to the department stores. Commissioner Webster suggested additional sidewaiks: 1) from the NW comer of JC Penney to the ring road; 2) SE comer of the future department store to the ring road; 3) center of the retail store to the ring road; 4) questioned the function for the existing sidewalk to Sears as said he believes more pedestrian traffic will use the sidewalk above to go to the power center. Mr. Heller commented there are extensive walking accommodations and landscaping along the south side; the additional one from Penney's would be the most reasonable and could be accommodated. Further, while it appears feasible to have a walk from the ring road, there is a safety factor as cars entering from Winchester Road do not have a stop sign and a crosswaik would create stacking problems. He will need time to look at site improvement and engineering drawings with Public Works and Planning staffs to make certain the sidewalks are in the most appropriate locations to provide safe egress. R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\6-2-97.WPD 6/30/97 klb 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 1997 Commissioner Soltysiak asked if a striped crosswalk with no traffic control would be an impediment to internal circulation. Mr. Heller replied a crosswalk would not work unless ring road traffic was stopped. At each entrance, there is a stop sign on the ting road with stops every 500' to 700' around the ring road. He said the design of peripheral development around a four-lane 44' wide ring road is standard shopping center design and he has never experienced a problem with people crossing between the peripheral development and the mall. Chairman Fahey remarked since there are concerns, staff can work on the sidewalk issue and the Commission can look at the sidewalk plan when reviewing the landscape plan. Mr. Heller stated he will work with staff and with the landscape architect. Commissioner Webster stated he had the following comments: after constructing a parking lot, one would not come back to add a sidewalk; putting it in now, a line for future development is being provided because the sidewalk's main purpose is to provide a means for people to walk to the mall. He added more linkage between the power center and mall is needed; the mass of buildings along Margarita Road should be broken up and provide a streetscape along Winchester rather than a parking lot. He recommended the separation of Buildings B and C and a walkway to the rear to provide access to the back parking lot as well as additional gathering spaces. He also suggested breaking up Buildings J and K; existing Condition 4-E requires buildings along Winchester Road be placed as close as possible to Winchester Road frontage, which puts Pad B in conflict. Commissioner Miller remarked he is not certain he agrees with splitting those buildings as he is not sure a split will be used, and it would also encourage foot traffic crossing a busy street. Chairman Fahey stated the building mass can be addressed with elevations and is not in favor of splitting the buildings. Commissioner Soltysiak agreed with Chairman Fahey and also stated security may be a concern for the walkway. Mr. Macken commented this layout was one everyone felt worked because it opened up views into the power center. Margarita Road will be heavily screened according to the Conditions of Approval. There is a security issue with splitting buildings and it is better they be broken up architecturally. Finally he pointed out parking in the rear of buildings is generally designated employee parking. Mr. Heller mentioned there is continuous sidewalk and landscaping around the buildings which link the entire project together and there is complete pedestrian linkage along the exterior of the project. Commissioner Webster asked why there is no landscaping around the sides or rears of the power center. Mr. Heller replied landscaping detail will be shown later, but there is no purpose to have landscaping along the rear of the power center because of truck loading. Commissioner Miller stated he preferred meandering sidewalks along the City's streets. Mr. Parks said engineering and design for the perimeter streets will be done soon and if it is the desire of the Commission, meandering sidewalks will be addressed. R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\6-2-97.WPD 6/30/97 klb 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 1997 Chairman Fahey reiterated the Commission would like to look at the sidewalk plan in conjunction with the landscape plan. Commissioner Webster asked about the parking lot design. Mr. Heller stated parking stalls will be double stripped with two (2) 4" strips, and have a 9' center. Commissioner Webster asked whether there was a formula to determine the percentage of compact cars or were they fit in to accommodate the site design layout. Mr. Heller replied it is difficult to define where a compact car customer wants to park; up to 10% of parking spaces will be foreshortened, with widths remaining 9'. Chairman Fahey called a recess at 8:07 PM and the meeting was reconvened at 8:20 PM. Mr. Fagan presented the staff report on elevations. Tom Groover, KA Incorporated, explained the name--The Promenade of Temecula, colors, materials being used, logo--pinwheel or flower, trellis and canopies, for people gathering spaces, and grassy areas. Commissioner Slaven asked if it was possible to consider some type of cover for the open entryways. Mr. Groover stated he will consider a way to keep the rain off patrons. Dave Rhoads, Excel Architect, architect for the power center, stated he tried to break up the box by roof undulations; each major entrance is treated a little differently. Tile roofs like the adjacent residential area will be used; trellises will be employed at the corner and there will be entry facade enhancements. Chairman Fahey stated she liked the renderings and the entrances, but does not believe there is enough added architectural interest to break up the massing. Mr. Rhoads explained this is a generic look since we do not have tenants but as tenants come on, there will be more individuality. If a heavy pattern is articulated from one end to another, it would be a very busy look. Commissioner Miller commented the elevations look like a pattern and is there a way to break it up. Mr. Rhoads stated it will not be a pattern; each is slightly different (material, for example). Commissioner Slaven commented the examples are geometrical; considerable amount of work needs to be done; and square towers are useless in her opinion. Mr. Macken stated tenants are shown the approved entrances and they pick one that fits their use. Commissioner Miller questioned the businesses who have a particular corporate architecture. Mr. Macken replied they would have to come back for a hearing. Chairman Fahey said the elevations of the mall are great; they variation and frontage is good. She said it would be nice if they could be duplicated in the power center. R: \PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\6-2-97.WPD 6/30/97 klb 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 1997 Commissioner Webster liked the elevations for the mall, He asked if the split face block is going to be dark as it is not shown on the color sample board. Mr. Groover replied the block will be dark. Commissioner Slaven stated the mall has a number of different architectural amenities and would like to see something similar in the power center. It was the consensus of the Commission to approve the elevations of the mall. Commissioner Miller stated the two renderings of the power center closest to Margarita and the back looked fine but the front gives a feeling of a flat-pointed-flat pattern and needs a mix of elements. Commissioner Webster suggested breaking up the massing; and putting in more trellises and benches along the flat spaces of the wall to relieve the monotony. Chairman Fahey stated there are lots of way to break up the mass, it needs work with more interesting facades, more roofline variations and more articulations in the front, not just in the entrances. Commissioner Slaven questioned if there will be small coffee/sandwich places in the power center. Mr. Groover replied the comers are for a seated, landscaped trellis area, but it is limited to six or seven shops in order not to dilute the entertainment area. He said it needs to be collected in a district because they all want their signage visible from Winchester Road. Chairman Fahey stated for the next meeting, the power center needs additional work in breaking up building mass and suggested the applicant work with staff. Mr. Macken stated there will be areas within the power center for small tenants and he showed photos of power centers done by Forest City. He stated he will break up sections for the next meeting to illustrate what can be done. Commissioner Miller suggested match lines so the Commission can put them together. Chairman Fahey reiterated landscape plans for the mall and corner treatment need additional work and are to be brought back to the Commission. Mr. Fagan asked for two Planning Commissioners to work with the landscape architect. Commissioners Miller and Soltysiak agreed to work with staff. Mr. Fagan presented the staff report on Robinson-May's landscape plan and elevations. Tony Amato, Amato/Reed Associates Architects, St. Louis, Mo., architect for Robinson-May, stated he was available to answer any questions and there were none. Commissioner Webster asked about vines on the two screening walls of each side of the load dock. Mr. Larry Moline, LRM-LTD Landscape Architects, Culver City, replied that wall does not have vines as there are trees and shrubs for screening purposes. Commissioner Webster stated he would prefer camphor and strawberry trees over California pepper. R: \PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\6-2-97.WPD 6/30/97 klb 8 Planning Commission Minutes Chairman Fahey and Commissioner Slaven stated they like the California pepper trees. June 2, 1997 Mr. Fagan presented the staff report on the elevations for Sears. Architect for Sears stated Sears has a corporate image and he does a site adaptation of those components for a particular mall site. Commissioner Slaven commented the City's trying to make an integral project and asked if Sears has another corporate image and does the tire store insist on having their own identity. The architect replied there was no other Sears prototype and the tire store has created their own architectural expression. Chairman Fahey stated neither the Sears store nor the tire store achieve compatibility with the rest of the mall and that's unacceptable for the center. Commissioner Slaven concurred with Chairman Fahey. Commissioner Webster commented the TBA store is completely unacceptable and Sears' biggest problem is the west elevation - the main entrance is dysfunctional, not clearly defined; the back-lit windows are inappropriate; the chimney clashes with the rest of the mall, especially since this entrance is so dose to the mall's entrance. He recommended benches be added at both entrances and the wall screened with vines. Commissioner Soltysiak expressed his disappointment with the architecture as it clearly does not tie into the project. Commissioner Miller supported the other Commissioners' remarks. Mr. Macken stated he will talk to Sears and there is some negotiating between Sears' corporate image and what has been expressed by the Commission. Regarding the corner treatment, Commissioner Webster stated he has given written comments to staff; for the Landscape Plan, he would like to see a landscaped median for the first access road off Margarita Road to the power center even though it is considered to be a minor entrance. He mentioned the following: 1) there are no parking lot trees for the power center and he would like some in that area; (2) there is more tree density around the mall than the ring road and he would like to see more around the ting road to create a uniform density, otherwise all one will see is asphalt and a car lot during Christmas time due to the different levels. (3) Regarding the corner treatment at Winchester/Ynez, he understands staff has various options - art work, water features, landscape, and he agrees with all of them and couldn't detail any one thing to make certain this focal point receives the special treatment needed to give the mall a sense of place. (4) Commissioner Webster expressed concern about having a movie marque at the corner. Commissioner Slaven also discouraged a marque on the corner. R:\PLANCOMM\MINUTES\1997\6-2-97.WPD 6/30/97 klb 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 2, 1997 Chairman Fahey stated she liked the comer treatment shown several years ago for Wal-Mart; and agreed a movie marque is inappropriate. Assistant City Attorney Reuben Weiner reminded the Commission that this is a continued public hearing and any information received at conferences with the applicant needs to be disclosed when the hearing is reconvened for public response. Mr. Macken clarified a movie marque is not planned at that comer. Shawn Warner, 13 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, representing So Cal Cinemas, spoke in opposition to the additional theaters as they will hurt existing ones and asked the Commission to study the impact of additional theaters on the retail centers before approving the entertainment complex. Mr. Warner passed out copies of newspaper articles relative to overscreening areas. Commissioner Miller asked if So. Cal Cinemas has data they would like the Commission to review. To please give such studies to staff for Commissions review. Mr. Weiner mentioned the issue before the Commission is consideration of the design of the complex, and the Commission can only deny the design the theater. Penny Rivera, 45320 Esmerado Court, expressed support for the mall, but asked the Planning Commission to request an independent and detailed study on the effect the mall megaplex will have on existing theaters and the commercial centers they support before approving the theater portion. Wayne Hall, 42131 Agena, commented the Sears building needs a lot of work; the project needs more landscaping in the parking lot and outside of the mall. Mr. Fagan reported the project will be conditioned for a comprehensive sign program which will be approved by staff. In response to Commissioner Miller's opinion that the signage should come to the Commission, Mr. Thomhill stated he will send copies of the sign program to the Commission before any decision is made. Commissioner Miller stated that approach was acceptable to Commissioner Miller. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, seconded by Commissioner Miller, to continue this item to the meeting of June 16, 1997. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Fahey expressed her appreciation for Commissioner Webster's efforts and thanked him for his service. Commissioner Webster voiced his gratitude to have the opportunity to work with all the Commissioners and thanked staff for an excellent job. R: \ PLANCOMM\MINUTES\ 1997 \ 6-2- 97. WPD 6/30/97 klb ATTACHMENT NO. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 7, 1997 R:~FORMS\STAFFRPT.CC 7129197 klb 30 advising that she was just desirous of reviewing the plans. It was requested that the Commission be apprised of Director approvals within the 15-day appeal period to ensure ample notice for review and input. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0118 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) Planning Commission consideration of a request for approval of a Development Plan for a 1,079,846 square foot regional mall, a 403,000 square foot power center (retail), an 80,000 square foot cinema, and 235,000 square feet of future retail space on 133.5 acres. RECOMMENDATION To make a Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified and Findings that a subsequent EIR is not required; To adopt Resolution No. 97- Approving Planning Application No. PA 97-0118 (Mall and Power Center Site Plan, Mall and Power Center Elevations, Mall and Power Center Landscape Plan, Mall and Power Center Color and Material Boards; Robinsons-May site/Landscape Plan, Robinsons-May elevations and Robinsons-May color and material board) based upon the analysis and findings contained in the staff report subject to Conditions of Approval. Assistant City Attorney Weiner informed the Commissioners that the June 2, 1997, Planning Commission meeting was originally continued to June 16, 1997. Beca. use the June 16, 1997, meeting was canceled, Mr. Weiner advised that this evening's meeting was renoticed as a new hearing and that, therefore, newly appointed Commissioner Guerriero could participate in these proceedings and noted that Mr. Guerriero had attended the June 2, 1997, Planning Commission meeting and is therefore aware of all the information provided to the Commissioners with regard to this request. Briefly reviewing the previously submitted request, Commission comments with regard to this request, and those improvements made in response to the Commission comments, Community Development Director Thornhill noted staffs concurrence with these improvements with the exception of the architectural style of the buildings and advised that Associate Planner Fagan would be providing the staff report in three components - Sears and Sears Auto Center elevations, Planning Commission July 7, 1997 landscaping of the entire project, and elevations and design elements of the Power Center. SEARS AND SEARS AUTO CENTER By way of overheads and color renderings, Associate Planner Fagan reviewed the staff report (of record) and proceeded with an explanation of those modifications proposed by the applicant with regard to the Sears building and the Sears Auto Center elevations, highlighting the following: design roof heights colors For Commissioner Slaven, Planner Fagan provided additional input with regard to the architectural design differences (Sears building) between those plans submitted this evening and those originally submitted, specifically commenting on the changes made to the elevations of the building. At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing. Having met with the Planning Director and the City Manager in a study session in order to review the proposed modifications, Mr. Colin Macken, Forest City Development, reiterated his support of these modifications; commented on their compatibility with the overall Mall; and requested Commission approval. Mr. Chuck May, Senior Director of Real Estate for the Western United States for Sears, clarified that the topography of this particular lot delegates the location of the parcel pick-up/delivery, service department, etc. Mr. May noted that any future expansion to the Sears building would occur at the north elevation. By way of a color rendering, Mr. Les Cooley, architect for Sears, reviewed the newly proposed modifications with regard to color, materials, elevations, and design for the Sears building as well as the Auto Center, noting the compatibility of the Auto Center to the Sears building and advising that the delivery trucks will be shielded from view off Winchester Road. He advised that the Sears tower should be reflected as white in color and that the applicant would be desirous of reviewing, at a later time, the use of granite for the base of the building instead of the currently proposed use to which the Commissioners voiced no objection. With regard to materials, Commissioner Miller relayed his desire that the stucco on the Sears building match the horizontal banding and the square grid pattern as reflected in his photograph. Planning Commission July 7, 1997 As was noted in the June 2, 1997, Planning Commission minutes, Commissioner S!aven reiterated the Commission's opposition to the proposed back-lit display windows (facing Winchester Road) and noted that she would still oppose the use of such windows, finding them inappropriate. Mr. Cooley reviewed the purpose of these windows to which Commissioner Slaven suggested that they be eliminated and that additional landscaping be provided in lieu of these windows. If the possibility additional landscaping were not feasible, Commissioner Slaven suggested that this space be further recessed and that actual merchandise be displayed in the provided space. At this time, Chairwoman Fahey invited public input to which there was no response. !n response to Chairwoman Fahey's concern, echoed by Commissioner Soltysiak, with regard to how the proposed display windows relate to the City's Sign Ordinance, extensive discussion ensued with Mr. James Heller, representing KA Architecture, advising that a sign plan for the entire project would be submitted to the Planning Commission at a later date for review and approval. Commissioner Soltysiak voiced no strong objection or preference with regard to the use of such windows. Having seen the proposed back-lit display windows at other locations, Commissioner Guerriero noted his concurrence with the use of this type of window. Having objected to the use of such windows at other facilities in the City, Commissioner Miller noted his objection to the use of them at this particular location. Appreciating the efforts of the applicant with regard to the proposed modifications, Commissioner Soltysiak, echoed by Chairwoman Fahey, commended the applicant on a job well done. Considering the function of the proposed windows, Mr. Macken requested that they be viewed as a window versus actual signage. Mr. Cooley provided additional clarification with regard to a display case window and a hinged window as being proposed. For Commissioner Slaven, Community Development Director Thornhill advised that the approved elevation plan for the Sears building would apply to any future expansion on the north elevation or any elevation and that any deviation from this plan would require Planning Commission review and approval. Planning Commission July 7, 1997 No objections were raised by the Commission with regard to the newly proposed colors and materials for the Sears building and the Auto Center. Commissioner Miller suggested the imposition of a condition prohibiting outdoor sales areas to which Mr. May voiced no objection as long as such a condition would be imposed on the entire project and not just Seam. Mr. Heller advised that final details for the outside entertainment complex have not been finalized, noting that uniform kiosks will be proposed for outdoor sales. The Commission voiced no concern with regard to the use of uniform kiosks for outdoor sales. LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR SEARS Commissioner Miller viewed the proposed landscaping as inadequate and noted that more lush type of landscaping would be necessary. Because Sears would be following the overall landscaping plan for the entire project as it relates to size and species of trees, Mr. Cooley noted that those specifics have, therefore, not yet been addressed. In light of Mr. Cooley's comment, Chairwoman Fahey suggested that this matter be addressed in conjunction with the landscaping for the entire project. LANDSCAPING PLAN AND CORNER TREATMENT AT WINCHESTER AND YNEZ ROADS Associate Planner Fagan reviewed the staff report (of record) with regard to the landscaping plan and corner treatments, advising that Commissioners Miller and Soltysiak served on a committee which reviewed landscaping issues/concerns. For comparison purposes, Planner Fagan showed pictures of vadous landscaping plans (all well below 20%) of other malls; advised that the applicant will not he adhering to 50% parking lot coverage as required in the Specific Plan; but noted that 50% coverage is being proposed for the Power Center. Requesting that this regional Mall not be compared, with regard to landscaping, to other commercial buildings in the City, Mr. Bill Milsap, landscaping architect, informed the Commissioners that the maintenance cost of the parking lot landscaping is an operational issue and is, therefore, distributed to the tenants of the Center, noting that the applicant is attempting to keep common area maintenance charges as low as possible. He advised that the proposed Center would have approximately twice as much landscaping as other regional malls in Southern California. By way of a color rendering, Mr. Milsap proceeded with a detailed explanation of the proposed landscaping for the entire project including the Planning Commission July 7, 1997 entrances to the entertainment court from a pedestrian/motorist point of view. In addition, Mr. Miisap elaborated on the proposed landscaping for the corner treatment and advised that 24" box perimeter trees/shrubs will be spaced 60' apart and that the main entrance drives will include a combination of 24" and 36" box trees. Because of the immediate impact the use of Eucalyptus trees has on the overall landscaping appearance, Commissioner Slaven strongly encouraged the use of these fast-growing trees~ Speaking from personal experience, Commissioner Slaven cautioned the applicant from the use of pine trees because of associated disease and pest problems. Because of instability and brittleness problems associated with the Eucalyptus trees, Commissioner Soltysiak voiced no objection to the use of Liquidambar and as well favored the use of a smaller box for the Eucalyptus trees to ensure a stronger root base. Viewing this particular intersection as one of the City's focal points, Commissioner Guerriero echoed the need for additional landscaping and suggested the installation of a berm (south and east from the corner of Winchester Road and Ynez Road) for aesthetic purposes. For Commissioner Soltysiak, it was noted by the applicant that, where feasible, there would be no objection to the installation of meandering sidewalks along the public right-of-ways; that crosswalks would only be constructed at controlled locations; and that no acceleration/deceleration lane is being proposed for Margarita Road. In response to Commissioner Miller, Mr. Milsap reviewed the location of the proposed outdoor furniture; advised that the overall landscaping plan may be modified upon final construction but that the number of proposed trees/shrubs and location of outdoor fumiture would remain the same; voiced no objection to also ensuring that the size of these trees would remain as currently proposed; and clarified that the proposed perimeter hedge will be a compact, non-travel through type of hedge. Chairwoman Fahey invited public input at this time to which there was no response. At 8:31 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at 8:39 P.M. At this time, the following motion was offered with regard to Agenda Item Nos. 5 and 6: 7 Planning Commission July 7, 1997 MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved that Agenda Item Nos. 5 and 6 be continued to the July 21, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slaven and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 'With regard to the corner treatment at Winchester and Ynez Roads, it was the consensus of the Commission that more landscaping, as well as landscaping larger in scale, be provided and that the Commission would not necessarily be desirous of the installation of a fountain at this particular corner. Commissioner Guerdero suggested that the elevation of this particular corner be raised and reiterated his desire to construct a berm (south and east form the corner of Winchester and Ynez Roads) and to develop landscaped medians both on Winchester and Ynez Roads in order to create the appearance of a landscaped intersection. For Commissioner Slaven, Mr. Miisap reviewed the proposed landscaping for the Winchester/Margarita corner to which Commissioner Slaven requested that this corner treatment be reviewed by the Commission at the time the Winchester/Ynez Roads corner treatment will be reviewed. With regard to the overall landscaping plan, Mr. Milsap advised that the trees would be spaced anywhere from 40' to 100' apart and that the size of trees would range from 15 gallons to 36" boxes. Community Development Director Thornhill recommended that the project be conditioned subject to the resubmittal of a landscaping plan prior to issuance of building permits and review and approval by the Planning Commission. In light of Director Thornhilrs suggestion, it was the consensus of the Commission to use a combination of Eucalyptus trees as well as Liquidambar trees, for the corner treatments, to ensure adequate coverage during the winter season and that, at staffs direction, the corner treatments for both intersections be readdressed at the same time and that the proposed monuments be appropriately modified based on any landscaping adjustments. PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING Advising that the Power Center will be landscaped at 50%, Mr. Milsap noted that the applicant is proposing to landscape the parking lot area at approximately 20% to 30% versus the required 50%. Commissioner Guerriero encouraged the Commission to request that the applicant be required to landscape the parking lot area at a minimum of 30%. Director Thomhill encouraged the applicant to file an amendment to the Specific Plan for the area within the ring road which will not meet the required 50% landscaping coverage. Planning Commission July 7, 1997 It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to concur with the proposed parking lot landscaping plan. POWER CENTER ELEVATIONS By way of a color rendering, Associate Planner Fagan briefly reviewed the staff report (of record) and relayed staffs concurrence with regard to the applicant's newly submitted proposal. Mr. David Rhoads, architect for the Power Center, briefly reviewed those concerns raised by the Planning Commissioners at the June 2, 1997, meeting and highlighted modifications made in order to address those concerns - roof height, design elements/colors, landscaping, etc. Commissioner Slaven, echoed by her fellow Commissioners, commended Mr. Rhoads on a job well done. At this time, Chairwoman Fahey invited public input to which there was no response. SIDEWALK PLAN Associate Planner Fagan reviewed the staff report (of record); recommended approval of the revised sidewalk plan; and clarified that there is no difference between the term sidewalk and trail as noted on the site plan. In response to Mr. Sam Pratt's written communication, Planner Fagan informed the Commissioners that the Public Works staff had met with Mr. Pratt in an attempt to address his concerns with this project and noted that staff is of the opinion that Mr. Pratt's concerns with regard to traffic circulation have been addressed in the previous analysis as well as the current traffic analysis for the project. Mr. Bob Davis, representing Wilbur Smith Associates, provided additional input with regard to the proposed level of service (level of service "C" at grand opening of the project and level "D" at the point of General Plan build out); elaborated on the determination of the levels of service; and advised that associated signal lights would be synchronized to further ensure proper circulation. At this time, Chairwoman Fahey invited public input. Referencing his letter (copy submitted to staff for the record), Mr. Sam Pratt, 40470 Brixton Cove, noted his support for the construction of this Mall but relayed his concern with regard to traffic circulation; advised that, in his opinion, a Planning Commission July 7, 1997 9 level of service "E" would be more of a reality; highlighted specifics of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines; and, therefore, requested that an updated traffic report be completed as well as a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In response to Chairwoman Fahey, Community Development Director Thornhill advised that a project, such as the one proposed, has been anticipated on this particular site since prior to the incorporation of the City; noted that all issues of concern have been addressed, reviewed, and that mitigation measures have been proposed in the EIR and the Specific Plan; and stated that at the completion of this project, it will exceed all building conditions as identified in the General Plan. In light of Mr. Pratt's written communication, Commissioner Miller advised that he thoroughly addressed his concerns; met with Director Thornhill and Planner Fagan in order to discuss the issues of concern; and, therefore, relayed his support of this project. For Commissioner Miller, Assistant City ^ttorney Weiner briefly reviewed Finding No. 2 (the overall development of the land is designed ..... public health, safety, and welfare), advising that this is a required finding of the Development Plan approval. With regard to Finding No. G (there have been no subsequent changes to the Project since 10/11194, which would require major revisions of the previous FEIR and Addendum due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects), Commissioner Slaven noted her hesitancy to concur with this finding, noting that she has not received enough information to substantiate this finding. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to make a Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified and Findings that a subsequent EIR would not be required. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerdero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Slaven who abstained. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved for the approval of Resolution No. 97- as conditioned, including findings of fact set forth by staff; and commenting on the following conditions: Comments that no outdoor sales be permitted in the parking lot area; that the landscaping for the Winchester/Ynez Roads and Margarita/Winchester Roads intersections be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits; Planning Commission July 7, 1997 lo · that the proposed color changes be accepted; · that any substantial changes (5% or more) to the landscaping coverage must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission; · that a mixture of Eucalyptus and Liquidambar trees be utilized for the corner treatments; · that the applicant be required to obtain a Specific Plan amendment if required, with regard to allowing a deviation from the 50% parking lot requirement as reflected in the Specific Plan; · that 50% landscaping coverage be provided in the Power Center. Assistant City Attorney Weiner noted that Section 2, paragraph 1, of the Findings be amended to reflect the words "as conditioned." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. It was noted for Commissioner Miller that the charging stations for the electrical vehicles will be incorporated in the parking lot plan. 5. PLANNING APPLICANTION NO. PA97-221 A request for approval of an amendment to the Old Town Specific Plan to allow for the payment of the parking in-lieu fee in place of the required parking spaces. (Continued to the July 21, 1997, Planning Commission meeting; see page 8.) 6. PA95-0127 - SIGN ORDINANCE A request to adopt a comprehensive Sign Ordinance. (Continued to the July 21, 1997, Planning Commission meeting; see page 8.) PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT In light of Planning Manager Ubnoske's absence, Community Development Director Thornhill advised that the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting which was canceled will be rescheduled and that the Planning Commissioners apprise staff of any topics the Commissioners are desirous of discussing at this meeting. 11 Planning Commission July 7, 1997 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 LETTER TO STAFF FROM WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES JULY 28, 1997 R:\FORM$\$TAFFRPT.CC 7/29/97 klb 31 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS · PLANNERS 2300 E. KATELLA AVE. · SUITE 275 * ANAHEIM, CA 92806-6047 ,, [714) 978-81 t0 · FAX [714) 978-1109 July 28, 1997 Mr. Gary, Thomhill Planning Director City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 RE: Traffic Issues Raised by Mr. Albert S. Pratt Concerning the Temecula Regional Center EIR Traffic Study, January 1997 Traffic Study Update, and May 16, 1997 Specific Plan EIR Traffic Study Consistency Letter. Dear Mr. Thornhill: In response to Mr. Albert S. Pratt's letter dated July 21, 1997, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has prepared the following statements which address issues regarding the Temecula Regional Center EIR Traffic Study and subsequent January 1997 Traffic Study Update and May 1997 EIR Consistency Letter prepared by WSA. Since Mr. Pratt's various letters include traffic comments which are repetitive in nature, WSA has grouped the responses to address a condensed number of key traffic issues. 1) The Temecula Regional Center EIR Traffic Study addressed impacts associated with project build-out conditions. The methodology used to forecast traffic flows at project build-out was not based on assumptions of compound traffic growth, as suggested by Mr. Pratt, but rather a comprehensive forecasting study of future traffic conditions resulting from cumulative development in the study area. The most important issue which needs to be addressed in an EIR traffic study relates to the definition of area transportation facilities which would need to be in place to adequately accommodate the cumulative travel demand expected from existing development, build-out of approved development projects (which have yet to be implemented), and build-out of the project itself. it is important to understand that the length of time necessary to achieve the cumulative development condition is not important, as long as the magnitude of new development assumed to occur in the study area by project build-out is not understated. ALBANN, NY * ANAFEIM, CA * ATLANTA, GA ,, CAIRO, EGYP'r * CI'-~RLESfON, SC ,* COLUMBIA, SC * COLUN/BUS, OH ,, DES MOINES, IA .. FALLS CHURCH, VA * HONG KONG HOUSTON,IX * KNOXVILLE, TN · LEXINGTON, KY · LONDON, ENGLAND * MILWAUKEE, W1 ,, NENV HAVEN, CI * OAKLAND, CA * OPLANDO, FL * PITfSSURGH, PA ,, RALEIGH. NC RICHMOND, VA * ROSELLE, IL · SAN FRANCISCO, CA ', SAN JOSE, CA ,. SINGAPORE .~ TA~.LAHASSEE, FL * TAMPA, FL · TORONTO, CANADA., WASHINGTON, DC EMPLOYEE'OWNED COMPANY Mr. Gary Thornhill July 28, 1997 Page 2 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES In the Temecula Regional Center EIR traffic study, cumulative development assumptions for the project build-out scenario were very conservative (high) in that they included not only the three development components mentioned above: existing development; build-out of all approved County and City projects (Specific Plans, Plot Plans, etc.); and the project itself, but also included: build-out of all planned but not approved projects within two miles (such as Winchester Hills, Campos Verdes, Winchester Meadows, and Margarita Meadows) and 50 percent build-out of all other major projects within the Southwest Area Community Plan which had been identified as having plans "in progress." At the time the EIR traffic study was prepared, Riverside County approved Specific Plans within the Temecula sphere of influence included: · S.P. 103 - Murrieta Hot Springs; · S.P. 106 - Winchester 1800; · S.P. 119 - Paloma del Sol; · S.P. 184 - Mountain View (now referred to as Rancho Bella Vista); · S.P. 199 - Margarita Village; · S.P. 213 - Winchester Property (Silverhawk); · S.P. 217 - Red Hawk; · S.P. 220 - Warm Springs; · S.P. 238 - Crown Valley Village; · S.P. 223 - Vail Ranch; · S.P. 228 - Murdy Ranch; · S.P. 265 - Borel Airpark; and · S.P. Quinta De Lago. This extensive list of Specific Plan projects demonstrates that the cumulative development/traffic scenario addressed in the Temecula Regional Center build-out traffic analysis was comprehensive. It should be noted that several of the above listed projects including Winchester Hills, Murdy Ranch, Winchester 1800, Rancho Bella Vista, Crown Valley Village, and Quinta De Lago have either not yet initiated any development, or are in the very early stages of development. Given the magnitude of these projects, it is not likely that all will be built-out prior to completion of the Regional Center project. As such, the level of background development assumed in the project build-out analysis also represents a conservative assessment of cumulative traffic impacts. Mr. Gary Thornhill July 28, 1997 Page 3 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES The issue of annual traffic growth rates raised by Mr. Pratt, has no relevance to the analysis of cumulative traffic conditions at project build-out or at City General Plan build-out, for several reasons. The rate of traffic growth on a particular roadway is primarily related to the rate of new development occurring in the area which ultimately uses the road. Given a defined cumulative development scenario (such as project build-out or City build-out) for which ultimate traffic conditions have been projected, the rate at which area development occurs and the associated traffic growth rate will not change the ultimate build-out development level/traffic condition. The rate of development/traffic growth will, however, have an impact on the length of time required to achieve the defined build-out condition. Assumptions regarding pace of development and the associated rate of traffic growth are therefore relevant only to the phasing of area circulation improvement needs. The traffic studies prepared for the project identify roadway system improvements needed to accommodate Phase 1 of the Forest City Mall project and project build-out conditions. 2) Mr. Pratt has identified several area development projects and implies that they were not reflected in the Temecula Regional Center E1R Traffic Study. As can be seen by the list provide in Item (1) above, both Winchester 1800 and Rancho Bella Vista were included in the project build-out traffic analysis. Recent specific plan amendment approvals for these projects have generally resulted in overall residential dwelling unit reductions relative to the originally approved development plans. Some of the other development project plans which have undergone land use de-intensification include: Campos Verdes; Winchester Meadows; Margarita Village; and Paloma del Sol. The only development project identified by Mr. Pratt which was not specifically identified in the Temecula Regional Center EIR Traffic Study analysis is the Domenigoni Valley Reservoir project located east of Winchester Road between Scott Road and Simpson Avenue. The project lies northeast of the City of Temecula's northern sphere of influence, approximately 10 miles from the Temecula Regional Center site. According to the Domenigoni Valley Reservoir Traffic Study, traffic increases on Winchester Road immediately south of Scott Road are projected to be less than 500 vehicles per day. During the peak-hour periods, this would translate to a maximum of approximately 50 vehicle trips Mr. Gary Thornhill July 28, 1997 Page 4 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES (total for both directions). Assuming a typical pattern of traffic dissipation, by distance from the project, the increment of traffic increase would reach negligible levels on Winchester Road south of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Furthermore, this small increment of added traffic would be more than offset by the de-intensification of other, more localized projects which were included in the EIR analysis. 3) As stated earlier, Mr. Pratt incorrectly suggests that the Temecula Regional Center EIR Traffic Study analysis for project build-out conditions was based on assumptions of compounded traffic growth. Studies requiring mid-range to long-range traffic projections, such as the Temecula Regional Center build-out analysis, typically employ the use of a computer-based traffic forecasting model to more accurately simulate future traffic demand and travel patterns. Traffic forecasting models allow for the inclusion of trip generation related specifically to existing and future development projects and are designed to replicate the complex trip interactions which occur between residential land uses, employment centers, and commercial land uses. Furthermore, the cumulative traffic generated by existing and future projects is assigned to a simulated roadway network in a manner which reflects shortest travel times/distances and roadway capacity constraints. Project build-out traffic forecasts included in the Temecula Regional Center EIR Traffic Study analysis were projected through the use of a traffic forecasting model similar to that used to develop the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element. Traffic projections based on compound traffic growth are best suited for estimating future background traffic conditions in traffic studies involving development projects which have a relatively short implementation schedule (typically less than four years). This approach is also appropriate for estimating background traffic conditions for studies addressing traffic impacts for early phases of a multi-phase project. The underlying assumptions in this approach are: the assumed growth in existing traffic is an approximation of traffic increases expected from on-going development projects in the area; and while traffic growth occurs, the distribution patterns of existing traffic will not change substantially during the projection period. Mr. Gary Thornhill July 28, 1997 Page 5 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES in the final step of this approach, project related traffic is overlaid on the "factored" background traffic to simulate near-term future conditions with the project. The compounded traffic growth approach does not produce reasonable traffic projections for use in studies involving development projects/phases with implementation schedules longer than four years. This is primarily due to the higher likelihood that existing traffic distribution patterns will change over longer time periods due to the influences of other new development projects and roadway system modifications which may be implemented in the area. Changes in traffic distribution patterns are particularly common in areas with high growth potential and in areas where significant roadway improvements are programmed which will influence traffic distribution. The traffic analysis conducted for the Phase 1 project opening of the Forest City Mall project utilizes a traffic growth factor to simulate background traffic growth over the relatively short implementation period (by or before the fourth quarter of 1999). Peak period intersection traffic counts taken in 1996 were factored by an average annual growth factor of two percent per year for three years to represent fourth quarter 1999 background traffic conditions. If Phase one implementation is completed according to the currently proposed implementation period of two years, the effective traffic growth rate reflected in the analysis is slightly over three percent per year. While historic traffic count data indicates that actual traffic growth rates within the City of Temecula vary from intersection to intersection and also vary from one intersection approach movement to another, WSA believes the background traffic growth rate used in the analysis to be within reasonable limits of the actual average annual growth rates experienced at intersections in the study area. It should be noted that, while Mr. Pratt's contention is that all traffic in Temecula is growing at an annual rate of eight percent per year, he provides no actual traffic data to substantiate his claim. City-wide population growth rates do not have a direct correlation to traffic growth throughout the city. Factors such as average household size and the exact location of new housing has a major influence on new traffic generation and where new traffic is added. Gasoline tax and motor vehicle t~e revenue increases are also influenced by many factors which do not translate directly to traffic increases throughout the City. Increases in the price of gasoline and vehicle valuations may comprise a significant portion Mr. Gary Thornhill July 28, 1997 Page 6 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES of the increase in revenue. Inflation may also be a component contributing to increased in revenue. 4) WSA disagrees with Mr. Pratt's implication that the program of roadway improvements identified for mitigation of the Phase I opening of the Mall project and full build-out of the Temecula Regional Center project is piecemeal and inadequate. The Temecula Regional Center EIR Traffic Study included the identification of a logical implementation plan for area roadway improvement needs based on the project phasing plan included in the EIR. It should be noted that although construction of the Temecula Regional Center has not yet been initiated, a substantial portion of the recommended roadway improvements required in the study for the early phases of the project, are already in place. The Temecula Regional Center Traffic Study Update, completed in January 1997, refined the definition of additional roadway improvements needed to accommodate area traffic at opening of Phase I of the Mall project. Roadway improvements identified to be completed by project opening are aimed at completing the adjacent street network to the full standards called fbr in the City's General Plan Circulation Element and are committed to be in place under the proposed development agreement. Additional roadway improvement needs, which have been identified for future project development phases, are currently programmed for implementation. Recently completed improvements include the Winchester Road widening to six lanes between Margarita Road and Santa Gertrudis Creek and the Winchester Road/I-15 interchange bridge widening and access ramp improvements. Additional off-site improvements programmed prior to the Phase 1 Mall opening include: the Margarita Road widening to four-lane Arterial standards between Solana Way and Winchester Road; the construction of Overland Drive to four-lane Major standards between Ynez Road and Margarita Road; intersection improvements at Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue, Solana Way/Margarita Road, and Rancho California Road/Ynez Road. All of the proposed Mall access intersections would also be improved and signalized. It should be noted that the currently proposed Mall access driveway cross-sections all exceed the configurations recommended in the original EIR traffic study. Programmed off-site roadway improvements which would be completed prior to build-out of Phase 2 of the Mall project include the Rancho California Road/I-15 interchange bridge Mr. Gary Thornhill July 28, 1997 Page 7 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES widening and access ramp improvements and the new four-lane Overland Drive Overpass between Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road. With the current roadway improvement program, all of the streets which will provide direct access to the project site would be improved according to General Plan Build-out Circulation Element standards. The only components of the EIR study circulation element which may not be in place by build-out of the proposed Forest City Mall project involve future streets which will be primarily required to serve the traffic needs of the Winchester Hills Specific Plan project and would not be required to serve the build-out traffic needs of the Mall project. In WSA's judgement, the City's programmed roadway system improvements represent a responsible plan providing for the combined traffic circulation needs of the community and the Mall project. Mr. Pratt's statements regarding widespread detrimental traffic impacts (resulting from the Forest City Mall project) on roadways throughout the City of Temecula are clearly overstated and not based any type of trip generation and trip distribution analysis. Traffic studies conducted for the City of Temecula General Plan Build-out Circulation Element, Temecula Regional Center EIR Build-out, and Forest City Mall Phase 1 all included an analysis of traffic generation and distribution which reflects the presence of the Mall project. Results of the project related traffic distribution analysis and related impacts are presented in the Temecula Regional Center EIR traffic study and Phase I Mall opening traffic study. The traffic impacts associated with the Temecula Regional Center project and the required mitigation are reported in the EIR Traffic Study documents. Mr. Pratt's comments incorrectly suggest that all traffic generated by the Mall project would be new traffic and that it would all come from areas outside the City. The traffic distribution analysis results indicate that approximately 35 to 40 percent of the mall traffic will be comprised of Temecula residents. Furthermore, the presence of the mall project in Temecula will capture regional mall/power center oriented shopping trips made by Temecula residents which would otherwise be made to other shopping locations outside the City. If the mall/power center is not located in Temecula, then local residents would make these trips anyway thereby contributing to traffic on many of the same roads which also provide access to the 1-15 freeway. Mr. Gary Thornhill July 28, 1997 Page 8 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES 6) In Mr. Pratt's letter to the City of Temecula Planning Commission dated June 29, 1997 (Item 7), he references two pages of the City of Temecula Master Enviromnental Assessment (MEA) document dated February 12, 1992. The referenced pages present traffic counts at various intersections within the City and a summary table which lists Highway Capacity Manual Signalized Intersection Analysis results for 18 signalized intersections within the City. The referenced traffic counts and intersection analyses reflect 1991 traffic and roadway conditions and were presented as documentation of "existing conditions" at the time the General Plan MEA was being prepared. Mr. Pratt's statement that all of the intersection traffic counts have been exceeded is true and to be expected for a six-year period. While it would also be reasonable to expect that Level of Service (evaluated for 1991 conditions) has also been exceeded at many of the intersections, there are several factors which could result in the same or better Level of Service under current conditions. These factors include changes in traffic patterns due to roadway improvements and/or new roads in the area and added capacity resulting from intersection improvements. 7) In Mr. Pratt's letter to the City of Temecula Planning Commission dated June 29, 1997 (Item 8), he states that he personally "timed" the installed traffic signal at an un-identified location and found it to be 1 minute and 30 seconds. Since it is not explained exactly what was "timed," we can only assume that he is referring to the signal cycle length. WSA cannot respond to the Level of Service "F" condition assessed by Mr. Pratt at this intersection (since the intersection was not identified). However, it should be clarified that Level of Service is no.t determined based on the cycle length of a signal, but rather the relationship of traffic demand at the intersection relative to the intersection capacity which is influenced by timing of the signal control. The Highway Capacity Manual Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections referred to by Mr. Pratt does state that a calculated intersection "delay" of greater than 60 seconds represents Level of Service "F." The correct definition of delay, as it relates to the Highway Capacity Manual methodology for the evaluation of Level of Service at signalized intersections, is "the average stopped delay per vehicle for a 15-minute analysis period." Adding further clarification, the average stopped delay per vehicle is measured based on all vehicles (at all of the intersection approaches) entering the intersection during the 15-minute analysis period. 8) In Mr. Pratt's letter to the City of Temecula Planning Commission dated June 29, 1997 (Item 28 and 29), he quotes excerpts from NCHRP Report 255 which deal with the application/interpretation of traffic forecasting model results. WSA is very familiar with Mr. Gary Thornhill July 28, 1997 Page 9 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES methods used in the interpretation of model results and has over 10 years of experience in traffic forecasting model development and application. 9) In Mr. Pratt's letter to the City of Temecula Planning Commission dated June 29, 1997 (Item 34), he makes reference to the Phase 1 Area ModeI Validation Report findings prepared for the Southwest Area Planning District Traffic Forecast Model Development. This sub-regional model development effort is being conducted for the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) by HMA. The Phase 1 Model Area Validation Report was an interim study document which presents a tabular summary showing a comparison of model generated traffic volumes for the base year (1990), at select roadway locations, with actual traffic counts. If model generated traffic volumes deviate beyond desirable limits set forth in NCHRP Report 255, the roadway link volumes are reported in the table as "not being within tolerable limits." Mr. Pratt has incorrectly interpreted the results reported in the "Trip Assignment Validation" table to be an analysis of forecasted year 2015 traffic congestion. It should also be noted that the interim study Validation Report for this ongoing sub-regional forecasting model development effort, has no relevance to the traffic studies prepared for the Temecula Regional Center project. 10) In Mr. Pratt's letter of appeal dated July 21, 1997 (Attachment/Supporting Documents Item 12), he presents Table 5b "ICU Summary-Year 2000 With Project" (taken from the Temecula Regional Center EIR Traffic Study) and highlights one intersection (Jefferson Avenue/Winchester Road) which reports a morning peak-hour Level of Service of "F" and an evening peak-hour Level of Service of"D." Since Mr. Pratt has presented this table "out of context" and without any commentary, WSA must explain that the table presents the traffic analysis results for project build-out traffic conditions "without mitigation." Mr. Pratt chose not to include Table 6 of the same study report, which shows additional intersection improvements which mitigate the morning peak-hour Level of Service from "F" to "D." 1 I) In Mr. Pratt's letter of appeal dated July 21, 1997 (Attachment/Supporting Documents Item 13), he presents a page from a superseded traffic study document prepared for an earlier draft of the EIR document. The final traffic study dated April 1991 includes updated traffic information which was used to document 1990/1991 traffic conditions or the "existing conditions" at the time the study was prepared. It is important to recognize that during the Mr. Gary Thornhill July 28, 1997 Page 10 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES mid-to-late 1980's development activity and traffic growth reached record levels in the Rancho California area. Traffic growth experienced during this period included a relatively high proportion of construction related traffic. The recession experienced in California during the early 1990's resulted in dramatically reduced development/construction activity in the Temecula area. During this period traffic growth was nominal and many roadways experienced reductions in traffic. 12) In Mr. Pratt's letter of appeal dated July 21, 1997 (Attachment/Supporting Documents Items 14 through 18), he miss-represents the attached traffic study excerpts as having been taken from the Temecula Regional Center EIR (No. 340) Traffic Study. The referenced text pages attached to Mr. Pratt's appeal letter are actually taken from the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element Traffic Study report. 13) in Mr. Pratt's letter of appeal dated July 21, 1997 (Attachment/Supporting Documents Item 27), he presents a copy of what is described as a "hand prepared work sheet" which consists of field counts and calculations used to "extrapolate" actual traffic flows at the intersection of Winchester Road and Ynez Road. The traffic counts used by WSA in the January 1997 Temecula Regional Center Traffic Study Update were conducted by a reputable traffic count firm which is also used by the City of Temecula for their annual traffic census program. The standard practice for collecting peak-hour intersection traffic data involves a minimum two-hour survey period, centered on the already established peak-hour period, within which manual counts are taken for all traffic movements at the intersection. Traffic counts which are recorded every 15 minutes during the extended two-hour peak period, are analyzed to determine the one-hour period which experienced the highest overall traffic volumes entering the intersection. In cases where the peak-hour period is not well established, a three-hour or longer survey period is typically needed to ensure that the peak hour traffic flow is captured during the count. Based on WSA's review of Mr. Pratt's method of calculating peak hour traffic flows we were able to determine that traffic counts for selected traffic movements at the intersection were taken for between 7 to 8 minute sample periods. Sample timings were also taken of the signal cycle length to estimate the number of cycles occurring within an hour. This was then applied to the sample count data to extrapolate the hourly traffic flow. Although this, Mr. Gary Thornhill July 28, 1997 Page 11 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES is a creative approach, it cannot be considered as an accurate method for calculating peak- hour intersection traffic flows. Signal cycle length for a fully actuated (demand responsive) signal, such as the signal system installed at this intersection, can vary significantly during the peak period. Furthermore, traffic flows at each of the intersection approach traffic movements can peak at different times. Extended traffic counts over a period of at least two hours are needed to accurately determine when the overall intersection peak hour traffic flows occur. 14) As documented in our traffic studies, all of the study area intersections will operate at acceptable Levels of Service with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. WSA appreciates the opportunity to respond to traffic issues raised by Mr. Pratt concerning the Temecula Regional Center. Should the City of Temecula Planning Department, Public Works Department, or City Council members have any questions concerning these issues, we will be happy to respond at or before the upcoming City Council meeting scheduled on August 4, 1997. Respectfully, WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Robert A. Davis Principal Transportation Planner RAD: rad