Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout112002 PC 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 Trtle II] AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE November 20, 2002 - 6:00 P.M. ******** Next in Order: Resolution: No. 2002-053 CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Commissioner Mathewson RollCall: Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chiniaeff PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary Drior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC AII-matters-tisted-under-Consent-Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these Items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific Items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 Aaenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of November 20, 2002 R:\PLANCOMM\Agendas\2002\ 1 '-20-ll2.doc I COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or In opposition to the approval of the proJect(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects In court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or prior to, the public hearing. Continued from August 21,2002 2 Plannino ADDlication No. PA02-0260 A Droposal to chanoe the General Plan and Zonino desionations from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office on a 2.75-acre parcel located on southwest corner of De Portola and Maroarita Roads. Emery PaDP. Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA02-0260; 2.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-~ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSiON OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0260, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON 2.75 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DEPORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS, AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 959-050- 007. New Items 3 Plannino Application No.PA01-0418. PA01-0509. PA01-0510 Chanoe the General Plan Land Use Desionations from Business Park IBP) to Community Commercial ICC) on three Darcels: and Amend the Reoional Center Specific Plan to remove Lot 1 of TPM 30107 from the Specific Plan: and Chanoe the Zonino Desionations from SP-7 to CC on one parcel. and from BP to CC on two Darcels located on the south side of Overland Drive between Maroarita and Ynez Roads. Emery Papp. Associate Planner R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2002\ 1 1 -20-02.doc 2 RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Planning Application Nos. 01-0418, 01-0509 and 01- 0510; 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: ~~. PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0418, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS FROM BUSINESS PARK (BP) TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) ON THREE PARCELS; PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0509, A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE ONE PARCEL FROM THE REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-7); AND PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0510, A ZONE CHANGE FROM BP TO CC ON TWO PARCELS, AND FROM SP-7 TO CC ON ONE PARCEL GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OVERLAND DRIVE BETWEEN MARGARITA AND YNEZ ROADS, AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 OF PM 30107. ,-."):, 4 Plannino ADDlication No. PA02-0549 ADDlication to consolidate five smaller two-stOry apartment buildinos into two three-story apartment buildinos in Sub-Area D. reducino the overall number of apartment buildinos on-site to 22 and therebv creatino more open SDace on-site located south of Hiohwav 79 South. north of Temecula Creek. east of Jedediah Smith Road. and west of Avenida De Missions. Emerv PaDP. Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0549; and 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION . NO. PA02-0549, A SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE APPLICATION TO CONSOLIDATE FIVE SMALLER TWO- STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS INTO TWO THREE-STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, BETWEEN JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND AVENIDA DE MISSIONS, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 961-010-006. R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2002\11-20-ll2.doc 3 5 Plannino Application No. PA02-0112 To desion. construct and operate an unmanned 70-foot tall Nextel Wireless telecommunication monopole structure and a 200-souare foot telecommunications eauipment shelter Rancho California Water District Norma Marsha Reservoir Site. located on the east side of Maroarita Road. south of Rancho California Road and north of Rancho Vista Road. Michael McCov. Proiect Planner II RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption from CEQA (Cla~s 32, in fill development) 5.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0112 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A SEVENTY-FOOT TALL UNMANNED NEXTEL WIRELESS COMMUNICATION MONO PINE FACILITY LOCATED AT THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT'S NORMA MARSHA RESERVOIR SITE LOCATED AT 41520 MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 954-020-005 & 011. 6 Plan nino APDlication No. PA02-0342 DeveloDment Plan to construct. establish and operate a 22.260 souare foot industrial/warehouse buildino with second-story office on 1.1 acres located east side of Bostik Court. aPDroximatelv 170 feet south of Winchester Road IAPN 909-360-008\. Matthew Harris. Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. 02-0342 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002,_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0342, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A 22,260 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAU WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH SECOND- STORY OFFICE. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BOSTIK COURT, APPROXIMATELY 170 FEET SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-360-008 R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2002\ 1 1 -20-o2.doc 4 7 Plannina Application No. PA02-0397 DeveloDment Plan to construct. operate and establish an 11.642 sauare foot executive suite office buildina on .95 acres locate at 27247 Madison Avenue. north of Sanborn Avenue; submitted bv Herron+Rumansoff Architects. Inc.. Rolfe Preisendanz. Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt the Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. P A02-0397 (Development Plan); pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 7.2 Adopt a Motion to continue for redesign. 8 Plannina Application No. PA02-0223 A Reauest for a findina of Public Convenience or Necessity and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to uparade the existina Tvpe-20 IOff Sale Beer and Wine) ABC license to a Tvpe 21 IOff Sale General) license authorizina the sale of beer. wine and distilled spirits for consumption off the premises where sold located in the Moraaa Plaza Shoppina Center at 29762 Rancho California Road on the north side of Rancho California Road. between Lvndie Lane and Moraaa Road known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-310-022. Rolfe Preisendanz. Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0223 (Public Convenience or Necessity and Minor Conditional Use Permit) per the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved); 8.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING A REQUEST FOR A FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE FROM A TYPE 20 (OFF SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE) TO A TYPE 21 (OFF.SALE GENERAL LICENSE) LOCATED IN THE MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, BETWEEN L YNDIE LANE AND MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 921-310- 022. 8.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2002\1 1-2Q-02.doc 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02.0223 A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO UPGRADE THE CURRENT ALCOHOL BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LICENSE FROM A TYPE 20 (OFF SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE) TO A TYPE 21 (OFF-SALE GENERAL LICENSE) LOCATED IN THE MORAGA PLAZA AT 29762 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, BETWEEN L YNDIE LANE AND MORAGA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. APN 921.310- 022. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: December 4, 2002 - Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 , R;\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2002\11-2Q-{)2.doc 6 . ITEM #2 . . . . . STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 20, 2002 Continued from August 21,2002 Planning Application No. 02-0260 - General Plan Amendment & Zone Change Prepared By: Emery Papp, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 02-0260; 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0260, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON 2.75 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DEPORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS, AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 959-050- 007. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: VALLEY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP PROPOSAL: A proposal to change the General Plan and Zoning designations from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office on a 2.75-acre parcel. LOCATION: Southwest corner of DePortola and Margarita Roads GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential EXISTING ZONING: Very Low Density Residential SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: Very Low Density Residential Professional Office Neighborhood Commercial (SP-4 Paloma del Sol) Very Low Density Residential West: R:\G P A\2002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-ll2.doc 1 EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Vacant North: South: East: West: Vacant Counseling Center Legal Non-Conforming Single-Family Residence Single-Family Residence . LOT AREA (gross): BACKGROUND 2.75 Acres This General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) was originated by Valley Christian Fellowship. It is their belief that the site is unsuitable for construction of a single-family residence (Attachment No.4) and that Professional Office is a more appropriate use for the site. The church is not proposing to build on the site. The application for the GPA and ZC was submitted to the City on May 20, 2002. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project and circulated for public review and comment from July 29, 2002 to August 19, 2002. The parcel is located within the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association. The Applicant sent a survey to residents and property owners within the HOA. The survey asked whether they were in favor of the proposed change, against the proposed change, or needed additional information. The results are mixed (15 for, 11 against, and 6 needed more information) with no group being significantly represented. No adjacent property owners responded to the survey. In conversation with staff, the President of the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association expressed opposition to the project. The Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association President also indicated that they would not be opposed to the change if the owner were conditioned to . construct a block wall to separate the parcel from adjacent residences and restricte,d the access to Margarita Road only. However, there is no mechanism on which to attach conditions at this time because there is no specific development proposal with this application. Land use compatibility issues would be addressed when a development proposal is submitted. The item was brought before the Planning Commission on August 21, 2002. When the meeting was opened for public hearing, the project was opposed by the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association, who challenged the adequacy of the Negative Declaration with respect to the traffic analysis conducted by staff. The President of the Los Ranchitos HOA (Larry Markham) requested, and was granted, a 90-day continuance to discuss the issues with the members of the HOA at a regularly scheduled HOA meeting. As of the date this staff report was prepared, the Los Ranchitos HOA had submitted nothing to staff. ANALYSIS In the original staff report (August 21, 2002) for the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, staff had focused on the following issues: . Land Use Compatibility . General Plan Conformity/Consistency . Environmental Determination . R:\G P A\2Q02\02-Q260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-02.doc 2 . . . For this staff report, only those issues that were disputed during the public hearing on August 21, 2002 are considered. The analysis from the prior staff report (Attachment No.2) may still be discussed if the Commission so desires. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FROM 08/21/02 STAFF REPORT CIRCULATION ELEMENT. Goal No.1 states that the City will "Strive to maintain a Level of Service "D" or better at all intersections during peak hours and Level of Service "C" or better during non-peak hours." To evaluate the General Plan level impacts concerning circulation, staff deferred to Policy No. 1.2 that states "Require an evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with new development prior to project approval, and require adequate mitigation measures prior to, or concurrent with, development." Using the General Plan Traffic Study (Table 2 - Land Use Trip Generation Factors), staff has determined that the overall number of vehicle trips that will potentially be generated by this site could increase from 10 trips (using Low Density Residential) up to a maximum of 600 trips per day (using Commercial Office). Trip counts taken at the intersection of DePortola and Margarita Roads in July/August 2001 indicate the following number of daily trips: AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS INTERSECTION/ROAD SEGMENT CURRENT BUILDOUT LEVEL OF (2001) FORECAST SERVICE "0" Maraarita Road at Hiahwav 79 South 20,339 17,900 37,800 Margarita Road at Jedediah Smith 15,000 20,700 37,800 DePortola Road east of Margarita Road 1,574 15,400 36,000 DePortola Road west of Maraarita Road 4,452 3,100 28,800 The proposed land use change has the potential to create additional vehicle trips when the site develops. However, the Level-of-Service at this intersection would remain LOS-A with the addition of 600 daily vehicle trips on any segment of either road. Staff has determined the additional vehicle trips would be a less than significant impact. When a future development application is received and processed, the intensity of the use will be determined and, if necessary, mitigation measures will be implemented. This project, as proposed, is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Circulation Element. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS UPDATE At the August 21, 2002 Planning Commission, Mr. Markham indicated that the Los Ranchitos HOA would challenge the adequacy of the Negative Declaration that was prepared by staff for this project. The point of contention was the traffic analysis. Staff performed a General Plan level traffic analysis for this project that considered ultimate or "Buildout" conditions as required by the City's Growth Management Action Plan. The Table above identified the most recent (at the time the report was prepared) daily trip counts for DePortola Road west of Margarita Road, and the ultimate capacity of this segment of roadway when developed to its designed width. These figures indicated that even if all of the vehicle trips created by the future development of the site were diverted onto this segment of DePortola, Level of Service would remain at LOS A. R:\G P A\2002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-ll2.doc 3 The General Plan Circulation Element identifies the ultimate classification of this roadway as a . 4-Lane Secondary Highway, capable of carrying up to 29,000 vehicles a day at LOS D. Mr. Markham's challenge to the Negative Declaration is that staff did not consider the fact that this segment of DePortola Road was not considered at its current pavement width in the traffic analysis. This segment of DePortola Road is currently +/-40 feet wide, allowing for two lanes of moving traffic and parking on the sides of the roadway. At the time the Negative Declaration was prepared, staff did not feel it was necessary to look at the current conditions of this segment of roadway because the daily vehicle trip count was very low. In response to Mr. Markham's comments, staff now offers the following additional information: FACT 1. Per the Public Works Department, DePortola Road west of Margarita Road is currently +/- 40 feet wide (this is equivalent to a standard General Plan collector street). 2. Per the Public Works Department, more recent daily trip counts taken in August 2002 are now available and indicate that current average daily trip counts have increased slightly to approximately 5,000 trips per day on this roadway segment. 3. Per the Public Works Department, the current width of this segment of DePortola Road should classify it as a Collector Road, capable of carrying approximately 12,000 vehicle trips per day. 4. This equates to a current condition of Level of Service A. (Level of Service can be expressed as a percentage of the number of daily vehicle trips divided by the roadway capacity. LOS A = 60% or less of capacity, LOS B = greater than 60% and less than or equal to 70%, LOS C = greater than 70% and less than or equal to 80%, LOS D = greater than 80% and less than or equal to 90%, LOS E = greater than 90% and less than or equal to 100%). . FINDING 1. Dividing 5,000 daily vehicle trips by 12,000 vehicle trips (current roadway capacity) yields a percentage of 41.67%, or a current LOS A for this segment of DePortola Road, 2. If all 600 daily vehicle trips potentially generated by the development of this site were diverted onto this segment of DePortola Road without road improvements, 5,600 daily vehicle trips divided by 12,000 vehicle trips yields a percentage of 46.67%, or a potential LOS A for this segment of DePortola Road, 3. Based on this analysis, the potential impacts of the future development of the site as a Professional Office use will not significantly impact this segment of DePortola Road, 4. Staff can update the Negative Declaration to include these findings, if so directed by the Commission, and per the provisions of CEQA, it is not necessary to re-circulate the revised document for public comment. . R:\G P A\2002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-02.doc 4 . . . FATAL ACCIDENT AT INTERSECTION OF DEPORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS During the Commission's discussions after the Public Hearing was closed, the subject of a fatal traffic accident in July 2002 at the intersection of DePortola and Margarita Roads was discussed. The item came up in relation to the discussion of traffic impacts on the segment of DePortola Road west of Margarita Road. Staff researched the accident. A 50-year-old Temecula resident lost her life after her vehicle struck an SUV that had ran a red light. The man who was driving the SUV is a resident of Solana Beach and was in Temecula to visit his grandmother. The accident was unfortunate, but also could have happened at any intersection in the City at any time. This accident in particular, and many other accidents that have occurred in the City recently are the result of driver negligence, and not because of adverse traffic conditions. Staff feels that the unfortunate accident at this intersection should not be considered grounds to deny this application. Environmental Determination This project does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA and an initial environmental assessment was prepared. The initial environmental assessment for this project identified no potentially significant impacts and a Negative Declaration was prepared. The public review period for the Negative Declaration was from July 29, 2002 to August 19, 2002. At the 08/21/02 Planning Commission meeting, the Los Ranchitos HOA President challenged the adequacy of the Negative Declaration, faulting the traffic analysis conducted by staff. It is important to note that the HOA had the opportunity to respond during the public review period but did not. Instead, the HOA's challenge was submitted verbally at the public hearing. Per the request of the HOA, the item was continued for 90 days until November 20, 2002. At the time this report was prepared, no written comments had been received from the Los Ranchitos HOA. Staff feels that the verbal challenges made concerning traffic impacts have been adequately addressed, have been further clarified in this staff report, and staff stands by its analysis and the previously prepared Negative Declaration. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff has determined that the project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration and the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. FINDINGS To recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, the following findings must be made: 1. The amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The proposed amendment meets the goals and policies of the General Plan, and is consistent with the anticipated impacts of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan and the guidelines of the Development Code. Any future development of the site will be subject to the City's General Plan, Development Code R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Chrtstian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-ll2.doc 5 and Design Guidelines to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the community . is maintained when the site is developed. 2. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. There are existing parcels designated Professional Office along Margarita Road, adjacent to the site, that are also adjacent to Very Low Density Residential Housing. Therefore, the proposed amendment will be compatible with, and will provide a buffer for existing and future uses in the surrounding area. 3. The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed land use map amendments will not conflict with the existing zoning or land uses and will result in more compatible potential land uses as there is existing commercial property across from the site on Margarita Road, and the subject site is currently adjacent to Professional Office zoned property to the south. Therefore, the proposed amendment will result in compatible development, which is a goal of the General Plan. To recommend approval of the Zone Change, the following findings must be made: 1. The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation in which the use is located, as shown on the Land Use Map. The proposed change of zone is consistent with the General Plan of the City of . Temecula if the proposed Zone Change is processed concurrently with the proposed General Plan Land Use Amendment. 2. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and will result in more compatible potential land uses as there is existing commercial property across from the site on Margarita Road, and the subject site is currently adjacent to Professional Office zoned property to the south. Therefore, the proposed amendment will result in compatible development, which is a goal of the General Plan. . R:\G P A\2002\02-Q260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-Q2.doc 6 . . . Attachments: 1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 8 A. CC Resolution (General Plan Amendment and Environmental Determination) - Blue Page 11 B. CC Ordinance (Change of Zone) - Blue Page 14 2. Planning Commission Staff Report 08121/02 - Blue Page 17 3. Planning Commission Minutes 08121/02 - Blue Page 25 4. Initial Study - Blue Page 31 5. Exhibits - Blue Page 43 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C. Zoning Map R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-ll2.doc 7 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_ R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 1 '-20-02.doc 8 . . . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0260, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON 2.75 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF DEPORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS, AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 959-050- 007. WHEREAS, Valley Christian Fellowship filed Planning Application No. PA02-0260 (the "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on November 20, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the Application, makes the following findings: A. The proposed amendment would not adversely impact area wide traffic circulation; B. The proposed amendment would not be contrary to the goals and policies contained in the adopted General Plan; and, C. The proposed amendment would not be inconsistent with the other Elements of the adopted General Plan. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed project would not create any significant impacts on the environment R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-02.doc 9 and therefore, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt a Negative . Declaration. Section 4. Recommendation. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the Application to amend the adopted General Plan Land Use and Official Zoning Map for the City of Temecula by changing the designation on the property identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 959-050-007 from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of November, 2002. Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson ATTEST: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE CITY OF TEMECULA ) ) ss ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify that PC Resolution No. 2002-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 20th day of November, 2002 by the following vote: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\G P A\2002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-Q2.doc '0 . . . . . EXHIBIT A CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_ (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION) R:\G P A\2002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to' 1-20-02.doc " . . . ATTACHMENT NO.1A CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR A SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DEPORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 959-150- 050) WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well as any adjacent areas which, in the judgment of the city, bears a relationship to its planning; and WHEREAS, the property owner has determined the existing land use on the subject parcel is "undesirable;" and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an Application for a General Plan Amendment on May 20, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearing on November 20, 2002, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on 2002 to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map The City Council hereby amends the General Plan Land Use Designation for the parcel identified as APN 959-050-007 from Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Professional Office (PO). Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council, based upon the information contained in the Initial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration prepared for this project, finds that the impacts of the proposed amendment is accurately described and discussed and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration accurately reflects the impacts of the amended General Plan on the City of Temecula and its surrounding areas. Section 3. Severabilitv. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to , '-20-02.doc '2 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _th day of 2002. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 2002 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: o NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: o o Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk R:\G P A\2002\02-G260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-02.doc 13 . . . . . . EXHIBIT B CC ORDINANCE (CHANGE OF ZONE) R:\G P A\2002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-02.doc 14 . . . ATTACHMENTNO.1B ORDINANCE NO. 2002-_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR A SITE LOCATED SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DEPORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 959-050-007) CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VL) TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) WHEREAS, the property owner has determined the existing land use on the subject parcel is "undesirable;" and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an Application for a General Plan Amendment on May 20, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on November 20, 2002, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the City Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; and, WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, local newspaper, and the project site; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on 2002 to consider the proposed amendments to the City Zoning Map. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendments To The City Zonina Map The City Council hereby amends the Zoning Map for the City of Temecula for the parcel identified as APN 959-050-007 by changing the Zoning designation from Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Professional Office (PO). Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council, based upon the information contained in the Initial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration prepared for this project, finds that the impacts of the proposed amendment is accurately described and discussed and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration accurately reflects the impacts of the amended General Plan on the City of Temecula and its surrounding areas. Section 3. Severabilitv. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-ll2.doc 15 Section 4. Notice of AdoDtion. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this . Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. 'The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. Section 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of 2002. Ron Roberts, Mayor ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk . [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 02-_ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _th day of , 2002 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the _th day of , 2002, by the following vote: AYES: o COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: o ABSENT: o COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC . City Clerk R:\G P A\2002\02..Q260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-o2.doc 16 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 8/21/02 R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-ll2.doc 17 . . . STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 21, 2002 Planning Application No. 02-0260 - General Plan Amendment & Zone Change Prepared By: Emery Papp, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 02-0260; 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0260, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON 2.75 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DEPORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS, AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 959-050- 007. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: VALLEY CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP A proposal to change the General Plan and Zoning designations from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office on a 2.75-acre parcel. Southwest corner of DePortola and Margarita Roads Very Low Density Residential LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: Very Low Density Residential Professional Office Neighborhood Commercial (SP-4 Paloma del Sol) Very Low Density Residential GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-ll2.doc 18 SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Vacant Counseling Center Legal Non-Conforming Single-Family Residence Single-Family Residence . LOT AREA (gross): BACKGROUND 2.75 Acres This General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change (ZC) was originated by Valley Christian Fellowship. It is their belief that the site is unsuitable for construction of a single-family residence (Attachment No.4) and that Professional Office is a more appropriate use for the site. The church is not proposing to build on the site. The application for the GPA and ZC was submitted to the City on May 20, 2002. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project and circulated for public review and comment from July 29, 2002 to August 19, 2002. The parcel is located within the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association. The Applicant sent a survey to residents and property owners within the HOA. The survey asked whether they were in favor of the proposed change, against the proposed change, or needed additional information. The results are mixed (15 for, 11 against, and 6 needed more information) with no group being significantly represented. No adjacent property owners responded to the survey. In conversation with staff, the President of the Los Ranchitos Homeowner's Association expressed opposition to the project. The Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association President also indicated that they would not be opposed to the change if the owner were conditioned to construct a block wall to separate the parcel from adjacent residences and restricted the access . to Margarita Road only. However, there is no mechanism on which to attach conditions at this time because there is no specific development proposal with this application. Land use compatibility issues would be addressed when a development proposal is submitted. ANALYSIS In reviewing the application for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, staff has focused on the following issues: . Land Use Compatibility . General Plan Conformity/Consistency . Environmental Determination Land Use Compatibility Staff has reviewed the Zoning Map and Development Code to assess the potential consistency of the proposed land use change. The existing designations between DePortola Road and Highway 79 South along Margarita Road are either commercial or office uses, except for the parcel that is being considered under this application. The land uses north of DePortola Road on the west side of Margarita Road are Very Low Density Residential. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed change is logical, and is consistent with the existing zone classifications along Margarita Road for the following reasons: . R:\G P A\2002\02-Q260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-02_doc 19 . . . . The Professional Office (PO) zone is the least intrusive commercial zone (offices are quiet uses) . The site is adjacent to a major arterial and PO is a more desirable land use than single- family residential uses . A non-residential land use would insulate the existing residential area from traffic and noise impacts . Potential land use compatibility issues can be addressed through proper site design Per the Development Code, the most significant changes in development standards would affect lot coverage and height requirements. The Very Low Density Residential zone allows maximum lot coverage of 20% and a maximum height of 35 feet. The Professional Office designation allows a maximum lot coverage and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 50% and a maximum height of 75 feet. While these standards are significantly different and could lead to design conflicts with adjacent uses, the General Plan Community Design Element goals and policies will prevail when a future Development Plan is submitted. The Development Code also addresses this issue. The Development Code requires a minimum 25-foot setback adjacent to residential property. As a result, the closest a future non-residential building could be located from a future residence would be 35 feet (25+10). Using the FAR, typical development could result in a one-story building covering half of the site, or a two-story building covering one quarter of the site. These policy-related issues are addressed in the General Plan Conformity section of this report. General Plan Conformity/Consistency Staff has reviewed the General Plan to assess the potential consistency of the proposed amendment with the adopted Goals and Policies. Staff carefully examined the Noise, Circulation, Land Use and Community Design Elements. After examining these Elements, the opinion of staff is that the proposed change is logical, and is consistent with the existing land uses along Margarita Road for the following reasons: . Projected noise levels along Margarita Road may exceed allowable levels for residential uses in the future. PO allows a higher exterior noise level . Traffic Level of Service will remain unchanged at LOS-A . General Plan Goals and Policies will ensure that appropriate transitioning and buffering will be incorporated into the site design NOISE ELEMENT. Goal No.1 requires "Land use planning that provides for the separation of significant noise generators from sensitive receptor areas." The discussion following this Goal states "Noise hazard areas will be considered to include locations within the 65 CNEL [Community Noise Equivalent Leitel] contour of master planned roadways, railroad corridors, aircraft flight paths, and industrial facilities." The two policy statements that follow apply to this project: . 1.1 "Discourage noise sensitive land uses in noisy exterior environments unless measures can be implemented to reduce exterior and interior noise to acceptable levels. Alternatively, encourage less sensitive uses in areas adjacent to major noise generators but require appropriate interior working environments." R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-02.doc 20 . 1.8 "Minimize noise conflicts between land uses and the circulation network." Furthermore, Section 4.A. Table 8-4 of the General Plan Noise Element indicates that exterior noise levels in residential areas should not exceed 65 decibels. Table 8-3 in Section 2.0.1. indicates that future noise levels on Margarita Road will be in the range of 61.1 to 67.6 decibels at 100 feet from the centerline of the street. The parcel is a rectangular shaped lot that fronts DePortola Road with the longer side fronting on Margarita Road. The approximate dimensions of the parcel are 277 feet by 450 feet. Margarita Road is classified as a 110 foot-wide Arterial Roadway, with a curb-to-curb dimension of 86 feet. Therefore, the 65-decibel noise contour would encroach at least 57 feet into the parcel along Margarita Road, rendering at least 0.59- acres of the site "undesirable" for residential development. . The proposed Professional Office use allows exterior noise levels up to 70 decibels, which is higher than the projected noise level at the 100-foot noise contour for Margarita Road. The traffic noise from Margarita Road would not as significantly impact Professional Office uses on the site, allowing buildings to be located closer to Margarita Road and further away from existing residents. One factor in recommending approval of the land use and zone change is the protection of residents from excessive noise levels, and compliance with the aforementioned goal and policies. CIRCULATION ELEMENT. Goal NO.1 states that the City will "Strive to maintain a Level of Service "0" or better at all intersections during peak hours and Level of Service "C" or better during non-peak hours." To evaluate the General Plan level impacts concerning circulation, staff deferred to Policy No. 1.2 that states "Require an evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with new development prior to project approval, and require adequate mitigation . measures prior to, or concurrent with, development." Using the General Plan Traffic Study (Table 2 - Land Use Trip Generation Factors), staff has determined that the overall number of vehicle trips that will potentially be generated by this site could increase from 10 trips (using Low Density Residential) up to a maximum of 600 trips per day (using Commercial Office). Trip counts taken at the intersection of DePortola and Margarita Roads in July/August 2001 indicate the following number of daily trips: INTERSECTION/ROAD SEGMENT AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS CURRENT BUILDOUT LEVEL OF 2001 FORECAST SERVICE "0" 20,339 17,900 37,800 15,000 20,700 37,800 1,574 15,400 36,000 4,452 3,100 28,800 Mar arita Road at Hi hwa 79 South Mar arita Road at Jedediah Smith DePortola Road east of Mar arita Road DePortola Road west of Mar arita Road The proposed land use change has the potential to create additional vehicle trips when the site develops. However, the Level-of-Service at this intersection would remain LOS-A with the addition of 600 daily vehicle trips on any segment of either road. Staff has determined the additional vehicle trips would be a less than significant impact. When a future development application is received and processed, the intensity of the use will be determined and, if necessary, mitigation measures will be implemented. This project, as proposed, is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Circulation Element. . R:\G P A\2002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-Q2.doc 21 . . . LAND USE ELEMENT. Goal No.3 requires "A land use pattern that will protect and enhance residential neighborhoods." The discussion following this goal states "Future residential and non-residential development should be compatible with the natural features of the site and the adjacent uses." The three policy statements that follow apply to this project: . 3.1 "Consider the compatibility of proposed projects on surrounding uses in terms of the size and configuration of buildings, use of materials and landscaping, preservation of existing vegetation and landform, the location of access routes, noise impacts, traffic impacts, and other environmental conditions." . 3.31 "Require parcels developed for commercial or industrial uses to incorporate buffers that minimize the impacts of noise, light, visibility of activity and vehicular traffic on surrounding residential uses." . 3.32 "Protect single-family residential areas from encroachment by commercial uses." Note: There are two Policies numbered "3.3" under Goal 3 of the Land Use Element The Land Use Element Goals and Policies discussed in this section can be implemented through the design process. The Development Review Committee (DRC) will ensure that a future Development Plan submittal for this site will address these policies to further minimize potential land use conflicts. COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT. Goal No.3 suggests "Preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts or neighborhoods." Because no development plan has been submitted with this application, it is difficult to address issues of community design. The discussion following Goal 3 of the Community Design Element states, "Of particular importance, is the preservation of the character of the single family neighborhoods and their protection from intrusions from buildings that are "out of scale," incompatible land uses, and excessive vehicular traffic." Staff feels the change of land use is appropriate, that vehicular traffic will not be significantly impacted, and that design issues can be addressed with a subsequent Development Plan that conforms to the policies of the Community Design Element. The following General Plan Community Design Element policies may apply: . 3.1 "Improve the appearance of neighborhood areas and the "edges" between neighborhoods through landscaping, location of open space buffers, and special landscape features" "Preserve the scale and character of residential development by creating appropriate transitions between lower density, rural areas, and higher density development." "Encourage the use of creative landscape design to create visual interest and reduce conflicts between different land uses." . 3.2 . 3.3 The Community Design Element Goals and Policies discussed in this section can be implemented through proper planning and the design process. The Development Review Committee will ensure that a future Landscape Plan submittal for this site will address these policies to further minimize potential land use conflicts. The DRC will also consider building mass, building orientation, site layout, ingress and egress, and buffering in determining compliance with these goals and policies. R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-ll2.doc 22 Environmental Determination . This project does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA and an initial environmental assessment was prepared. The initial environmental assessment for this project identified no potentially significant impacts and a Negative Declaration was prepared. Issues related to Traffic/Circulation and Hazards were identified with a "Less Than Significant Impacf' designation because daily vehicle trips could increase but would remain at a Level of Service "A." In the Environmental Assessment checklist, items a. and c. in Section 9 Hazards were given a "Less Than Significant Impacf' designation. They were checked because the potential increase of vehicle trips in proximity of the site could result in an increased risk of a vehicular accident fronting the site. Until the site develops, however, there will be no additional exposure to hazards resulting from the approval of this application. The public review period for the Negative Declaration was from July 29, 2002 to August 19, 2002. At the time this report was prepared, no written comments had been received. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff has determined that the project as proposed is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve the Negative Declaration and the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. FINDINGS . To recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment, the following findings must be made: 1. The amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The proposed amendment meets the goals and policies of the General Plan, and is consistent with the anticipated impacts of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan and the guidelines of the Development Code. Any future development of the site will be subject to the City's General Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines to ensure the public health, safety and welfare of the community is maintained when the site is developed. 2. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. There are existing parcels designated Professional Office along Margarita Road, adjacent to the site, that are also adjacent to Very Low Density Residential Housing. Therefore, the proposed amendment will be compatible with, and will provide a buffer for existing and future uses in the surrounding area. 3. The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed land use map amendments will not conflict with the existing zoning or land uses and will result in more compatible potential land uses as there is existing . commercial property across from the site on Margarita Road, and the subject site is currently adjacent to Professional Office zoned property to the south. Therefore, the R:\G P A\2002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11~20-02.doc 23 . . . proposed amendment will result in compatible development, which is a goal of the General Plan. To recommend approval of the Zone Change, the following findings must be made: 3. The proposed Zone is consistent with the land use designation in which the use is located, as shown on the Land Use Map. The proposed change of zone is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Temecula if the proposed Zone Change is processed concurrently with the proposed General Plan Land Use Amendment. 4. The proposed use is in conformance with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of the elements of the General Plan. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan and will result in more compatible potential land uses as there is existing commercial property across from the site on Margarita Road, and the subject site is currently adjacent to Professional Office zoned property to the south. Therefore, the proposed amendment will result in compatible development, which is a goal of the General Plan. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 8 A. CC Resolution (General Plan Amendment and Environmental Determination) B. CC Ordinance (Change of Zone) 2. Initial Study - Blue Page 15 1. 3. Exhibits: A. Vicinity Map - Blue Page 16 C. General Plan Map - Blue Page 17 D. Zoning Map - Blue Page 18 4. Letter from Valley Christian Fellowship to Los Ranchitos Residents - Feb. 17, 2002 - Blue Page 19 5. Survey Results (Returned Cards) - Blue Page 20 R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-02.doc 24 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8/21/02 R:\G P A\2002\02.0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11.20-02.doc 25 . . . MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21,2002 (Excerpts pertaining to PA 02-0260) CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, August 21, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Olhasso. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and Chairman Chiniaeff. Absent: None. Also Present: Director of Planning Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Curley, Redevelopment Director Meyer, Development Services Administrator McCarthy, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Principal Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Papp, Associate Planner Rush, Associate Planner Thornsley, Project Planner McCoy, and Minute Clerk Hansen. At this time the Commission resumed the regular order of the agenda, considering Item No.4. 4 Plannina Application No. PA02-0260 A proposal to chanae the General Plan and Zonina desianations from Verv Low Densitv Residential to Professional Office on a 2.75-acre parcel. located Southwest corner of De Portola and Maraarita Roads - Emerv Papp. Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 02-0260; 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-ll2.doc 26 . PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-0260, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ON 2.75 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DE PORTOLA AND MARGARITA ROADS, AND GENERALLY KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 959-050- 007. Associate Planner Papp provided an overview of the staff report (of record), highlighting the rationale for the request to change the General Plan and Zoning designations on this parcel; advised that the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association (HOA) was opposed to the proposed change; provided the results of the traffic and noise analysis associated with the proposed change, advising that the amendment would result in lesser impacts in terms of noise, and the traffic generated would enable the roadway at the intersection to remain at a Level of Service A; and provided additional information with respect to the proposed amendrnent being consistent with the City's Growth Management Plan. In response to Commissioner Guerriero's queries regarding the HOA's concern regarding the . desire that the applicant install block wall, Associate Planner Papp noted that staff could not make a recommendation regarding this issue without a proposed development plan, advising that once a plan was submitted, this issue could be addressed; for Chairman Chiniaeff, noted that environmental restraints could be imposed on the amendment proposal if it had been determined that the traffic impacts would be significant, which was not determined, Principal Planner Hogan providing additional information regarding imposing environmental restraints, advising that if it was determined in the Negative Declaration that there was the potential for land use incompatibility, then as a mitigation measure a wall could have been required along the western property line. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that with this amendment an environmental restraint map would not be required since there was no proposal for a subdivision of land. Associate Planner Papp relayed that there would be a required 25-foot setback adjacent to residential areas, advising that the General Plan does not require that any future development application for this parcel implement a significant transitional buffer. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the restrictions, which could be imposed on this proposal. In response to Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Papp specified the boundaries of the HOA. Associate Planner Papp noted the location of the alternate parcels in this area, which had been . changed to Professional Office, advising that there had been no requirement to construct a buffer wall. R:\G P A\20Q2\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-oZ.doc 27 . . . Mr. Mike McNeff, Pastor representing Valley Christian Fellowship, the owner of the parcel, concurred with staff that discussion regarding installation of a block wall would more appropriately be addressed at the time a Development Plan was submitted; for the record, submitted the signatures of all the adjacent property owners who border this parcel, specifying the location of these particular parcels; and for Commissioner Telesio, provided additional information regarding the adjacent property owners' support of the request to re-zone this particular property. The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed revised general land use designation at this particular site: . Ms. Nancy Austin . Mr. Kevin Johnson . Mr. Guy Romero . Ms. Claire Johnson . Mr. Jim Shuntz . Mr. Vicente Gchaerria Real Estate agent for the applicant 30707 Centaur Court 41685 Hawthorne Murrieta 30707 Centaur Court 30800 La Ray Lane 31775 De Portola road The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of the proposal, relaying the following comments: o The marketing efforts revealed that the proposed zone change would be the best use for this parcel; This property was not well-suited for residential; With the zoning as Office Professional, the City would have more control over development of the parcel; Since the parcel would remain within the Los Ranchitos HOA boundaries, the HOA would have input on future development of the property; The church, which was the property owner, would be able to find a parcel for the future development of a church use with this zone change since this parcel could be more easily sold; Advised that if the parcel was viewed in relationship to the surrounding area, the rezoning appeared to be more appropriate; and Noted opposition to the construction of an 8-foot wall (which was a recommendation of the HOA.) o o o o o o Mr. Larry Markham, representing the Los Ranchitos HOA, via distributed supplemental agenda material, specified the concern of the HOA with this proposal, in particular the impact the proposed rezoning would have on De Portola Road and the next properties to the west, specifically the potential for additional zone changes; provided a history of nearby properties which have had zoning changes; additionally noted concern with regard to various permitted uses within Professional Office zones; advised that the HOA had specified that with the installation of a block wall, and restricted access to De Portola Road (I.e., the parcel taking access off of Margarita Road) the HOA supported the proposed change; with respect to the environmental document, relayed that the traffic impacts of this zone change would be significant, advising that in his opinion the CEQA document was inadequate and that he would provide these points of concern in writing; recommended that concurrent to the processing of the zoning change, a dedication of access restriction on De Portola Road should be processed, suggesting that the applicant's previous offer of payment be replaced with an offer to pay for the cost of a block wall; recommended that this item be continued for 60 to 90 days; for R:\G P A\2002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-02.doc 28 Commissioner Mathewson, specified previously referenced residential properties which take access off of Margarita Road, confirming that the parcel on the adjacent side of De Portola was a vacant parcel; specified the boundaries of the HOA parcels; for Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Mathewson, reiterated that the HOA would be agreeable to the applicant installing a block wall along De Portola Road and the property line in lieu of the monies offered to the HOA, specifying that the wall would not need to be installed until the parcel was developed, reiterating that with this requirement and the dedication of access restriction the HOA would be supportive of the zone change. . Additional discussion ensued regarding the discussions between the applicant and the HOA. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley relayed that if this matter was forwarded to the City Council, the City Council would most likely be addressing CEQA issues (based on comments expressed at this hearing), advising that at that time the Council could either take action, or send the matter back to the Planning Commission for review of the CEQA issues; noted that if it was the Planning Commission's desire that accommodation be provided to the HOA's concern that there could be language indicating this desire in the recommendation to the City Council; noted that it was the Planning Commission's charge in this matter to review the request and determine whether this request was consistent with the fundamental planning documents of the City, i.e., the General Plan and zoning; and confirmed that any issue between the private parties was external to the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the access issue, advising that it would be more appropriate to consider access being revised at the time a development plan was submitted. . In response to additional comments, Mr. Markham specified the environmental concerns of the HOA's traffic, and public safety, noting the need for additional mitigation. In response to queries, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that staff would desire the opportunity to further explore the environmental issues of concern. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries as to why the HOA had not specified its concerns during the comment period, Mr. Markham relayed that as a Board, the month of July was dark, and the mail was received at a Post Office box, advising that at the August Board meeting eight out of nine Board Members had voted to oppose the zone change, as proposed, For Chairman Chiniaeff, Mr. McNeff advised that the HOA would be able to maintain certain control over the property based on the CC&R's which was a separate issue from the rezoning issue; provided additional information regarding the discussions between the HOA and the applicant; while noting that it would be the applicant's preference to move forward with the HOA's support, relayed the HOA had had ample time to address its queries during the public comment period of the environmental process; and advised that full disclosure would be provided with a new property owner. Commissioner Guerriero advised that it would be more prudent for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation after receiving all the associated information including the documents the HOA would be submitting regarding environmental concerns. . R:\G P A\2002\02.0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-oZ.doc 29 . . . MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the November 20, 2002 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson. (Ultimately this motion passed; see below.) Commissioner Telesio relayed that the issues of concern presented at this hearing would be more appropriately addressed during review of a future development plan, and not during the request for rezoning due to the lack of a nexus. Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff was unaware of outstanding CEQA issues, having first heard these concerns at tonight's hearing; and advised that it would be appropriate to continue this item in order to obtain the information from Mr. Markham and for staff to analyze this issue. Assistant City Attorney Curley provided additional information regarding the benefit of the Planning Commission obtaining additional information regarding the potential environmental impacts. Chairman Chiniaeff commented on the types of conditions which could be placed in the development plan for this parcel when presented, recommending that this item be moved forward to the City Council. In response, Commissioner Guerriero reiterated his desire for the Planning Commission to have all of the information prior to making a recommendation to the City Council. At this time voice vote was taken reflecting approval of the motion with the exception of Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Telesio who voted no. For Mr. McNeff, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that at the November 20th hearing the applicant did not need to provide additional information, but that the Planning Commission was interested in obtaining and reviewing additional information regarding the assertion that there would be an increase in traffic. R:\G P A\200ZlO2-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11.20-ll2.doc 30 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.4 INITIAL STUDY R:\G P A\2002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-ll2.doc 31 .,;..,..c, City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Project Title Lead Agency Name and Address Contact Person and Phone Number Pro'ect Location Project Sponsor's Name and Address General Plan Designation Zoning Description of Project Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Other public agencies whose approval is r uired . Environmental Checklist Valley Christian Fellowship Plannin A Iication 02-0260 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Eme J. Pa ,Associate Planner 909 694-6400 Southwest corner of De Portola and Mar arita Roads Pastor Mike McNeff, Valley Christian Fellowship 45627 Clubhouse Drive, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Existina: Very Low Density Residential lVL) Proposed: Professional Office lPO) Existina: Very Low Density Residential lVLl Pro osed: Professional Office PO A proposal to change the General Plan and Zoning designations from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office on a 2.75- acre parcel located at the southwest corner of De Portola and Mar arita Roads in the Ci of Temecula. North: Verv Low Density Residential lVL) South: Professional Office lPO) East: Neiahborhood Commercial lNC) West: Verv Low Density Residential(vLl None Vicini R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-ll2.doc 32 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 Plannina Hazards Population and HousinQ Noise Geolooic Problems Public Services Water Utilities and Service Systems Air Quality Aesthetics Transportation/Circulation Cultural Resources Bioloaical Resources Recreation Eneroy and Mineral Resources Mandatorv Findinqs of Siqnificance 0/ None Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE 0/ DECLARATION will be preDared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the Droiect. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is reauired I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proDosed proiect. Signature Date Printed Name for . R:\G P A\2002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-o2.doc 33 . . . Potentially' Signllicant Issues andSupportingJnformqtion ... Sburcesi.. "- " 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: 1.a. Conflict with general plan desi nation or zonin ? 1,3 1.b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with 'urisdiction over the ro'ect? 1,2 1.c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicini ? 1 1.d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incom atible land uses? 2 1.e. Disrupt or diVide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minori communi ? 1 Comments :Rotentially' :,' ,~" ':;: Signm~nt Less;Jhan:' Uhless. '.Signiffcan't;~ '~Mitig~tion';, ,(;..~If1:llli'l9t'l;:~i ~nj::br .oiated ,; .,.:?ily;~:~ of' of' of' of' of' 1.all This project will involve no construction. The land will remain vacant and the proposed land use change is compatible with existing adjacent land uses. At the time a development application is applied for and approved, the identification of mitigation measures will be ossible. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: 2.a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population ro'ects? 1,2 2.b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of ma'or infrastructure? 1,2 2.c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 1,2,3 R:\G P A\2002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report conlinued to 11-20-ll2.doc 34 of' of' of' , E'ot~i'i!i~lIy . ~.. . I Potentially Significant .' Less Than Significant, Unless Significant No Issues and Supporting Inforrnation Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Sources , . , .. ' .oJ ncorpotati:lcl'k , ,. ..';:;L.... Comments 2.all This project will not create a demand for additional housing or cause an increase in population. This project will not significantly replace or reduce opportunities for affordable housing. The existing zoning would allow only one residence to be constructed on the parcel. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or Expose people to potential impacts involving? 3.a. Fault rUDture? 11,2\ ./ 3.b. Seismic oround shakino? 1 1,2\ ./ 3.c. Seismic ground failure, including ./ liauefaction? 11,2 \ 3.d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic ./ hazard? I 1,2) 3.e. Landslides or mudflows? 1 1,2\ ./ 3.f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form ./ excavation, aradino or fill? 11,2\ 3.0. Subsidence of the land? I 1,2) ./ 3.h. EXDansive soils? 12\ ./ 3.1. Unique geologic or'physical v' features? (2)' Comments 3.all The proposal to change the General Plan and Zoning designations from Very Low Density Residential to Professional Office could potentially expose more people to risk than the existing VL designation. However, the applicant does not currently propose to develop the site, therefore, no persons will be exposed to geologic problems as a result of the chanae. 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 4.a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and ./ mount of surface runoff? 4.b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as ./ floodina? I 2\ 4.c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water ./ auality 1 e.a. temDerature, R:\G P A\2002\02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-02.doc 35 .' . . . . . :'Pofentlall"> ~... ,. .", .}" . . .. - :'16ferjtIaIJxJ ... 'irr"1.'~'" y . '.' Y,Y',,_,:, ....:.,<-c:: ", , ;'/!. 19nifl1~imW.i ~jlLe~s.+hll1i. Li~;:,\ t :. Significant ,...""J.lJn1~s<lt-Y';'r $:,Sigriificarit~, ';~~~~f~ Issues and Supporting Information ,Impact,;; t'::iV1itig~iion,"'~ '~Y-:"r Z~,.' "tY;Y ~L '""cmpac ".;;. Sources , . . :: r'hjc6rt)6ratea:>~ /;,/,,", :~,<;7/'~!0<~" '.; >. dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 4.d. Changes in the amount of surface v" water in any water body? 4.e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water v" Movements? 4.f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer v" by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge caDabilitv? 4.g. Altered direction or rate of flow of v" Qroundwater? 4.h. Impacts to Qroundwater auality? v" 4.1. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater. v" Otherwise available for public water sUDPlies? Comments 4.all The parcel will remain vacant and undisturbed. Groundwater and surface runoff will not be affected by the land use chanQe. No impacts are anticiDated. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 5.a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or v" Droiected air aualitv violation? 5,b. Expose sensitive receptors to v" pollutants? (2) . 5.c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change v" in climate? (2) 5.d. Create obiectionable odors? (2) v" Comments 5.all The applicant does not currently propose to develop the site and, therefore, the change of land use will have no immediate imDacts on air quality. R\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-ll2.doc 36 Poti'll'ltia[ly , Potentially , Sigrlilic;flht Less Than Significant . Unless>. . Significant No ~ Issues and Supporting Information Impac;t . .Miti9ation . Impact Impi:!ct Sources IOCQrb61'ated , ... 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: 6.a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic ./ conqestion? (2,3) 6.b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or ./ dangerous intersections or incompatible uses)? (2) 6.c. Inadequate emergency access or ./ access to nearbv uses? 6.d. Insufficient parking capacity on- ./ site or off-site? (3) 6.e. Hazards or barriers for ./ oedestrians or bicvclists? 6.f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative ./ transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicvcle racks)? 6.g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic ./ imoacts? Comments: 6.a The land use change has the potential to create additional vehicle trips in the future as the site develops. Using the General Plan Traffic Study (Table 2 - Land Use Trip Generation Factors), staff has determined that the overall number of vehicle trips that will potentially be generated by this site could increase from 10 trips (using Low Density Residential) up to 600 trips (using Commercial Office) per day. Trip counts taken at the intersection of DePortola and Margarita Roads in July/August 2001 indicate the following number of daily trip counts: Margarita Road northbound at Highway 79 South: 20,339 Margarita Road southbound at Jedediah Smith: 15,000 DePortola Road eastbound at Margarita Road: 1,574 DePortola Road westbound at Margarita Road: 4,452 The Level-of-Service at this intersection would remain LOS-A with the addition of 600 daily vehicle trips on any segment of either road. Staff has determined the additional vehicle trips would be a less than significant impact. When a future development application is received and processed, the intensity of the use will be determined and, if necessarv, mitioation measures will be imolemented. 6.b- The applicant does not currently propose development of the site and, therefore this g. project will not cause an increase in vehicle trips or impact the amount of existing Darkina. R:\G P A\2002\02.0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11 ~20-o2.doc 37 . . . . . . .Bqf~htially'.' I:" ',x' :,. ,~, Potentially; ,",~i91l,ific~nt< .~ ;lt~ss'}h~~f\ ~':~~~(0X~':':. Significant" '..';,Wi;ile~,$"" Y'~i9nifiCar1t'. No}",. Issues and Supporting Information Impact ., . .,M'itiQiJ.tibh1(;'" tyi'lrnRi'lQt')- 'i ;lnf~~Ct;, So.urces ".' . , Jrlc~rDoratedi',E ~:;,''';'^-,,\.'''>~"' ">~, )~Pl/,:,o-"~''',; 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal result in impacts to.: 7.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. ./ heritaae trees)? 11,2) 7.c. Locally designated natu ral communities (e.g. oak forest, ./ Coastal habitat, etc.)? 7.d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, ./ riparian and vernal pool)? 7.e. Wildlife dispersal or migration ./ corridors? Co.mments: 7.all The project site is within an area of the city that is urbanized. There are no known sensitive species or habitat in the vicinity. Furthermore, the applicant does not currently propose to develop the site and, therefore, no impacts to biological resources are anticiDated. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the propo.sal: 8.a. Conflict with adopted energy ./ conservation plans? (1) 8.b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ./ (1 2\ 8.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? (1,2) Comments: 8.all This project will not consume enemy or non-renewable resources. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal invo.lve: 9.a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances ./ (jncludina, but not limited to: oil, R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-ll2.doc 38 . PoteniiallY <, ., . " , Significant I,.' . Potentiall}" kellskThan' 0'" .; , . '. " .. No Significant . Unless .. Significant Issues and Supporting Information Impact. Mitigation 'Impact Impact Sources. I ncorPQraJed .. ., pesticides, chemical or radiation)? 11,2\ 9.b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or 0/ emeraencv evacuation clan? 9.c. The creation of any health hazard 0/ or potential health hazard? 9.d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health 0/ hazards? 9.e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 0/ (1 \ Comments: 9.all The subject site is at the corner of a busy intersection. Changing the land use from VL to PO will have the future potential for increased vehicle trips and, therefore, the increased probability of a vehicular accident fronting the site. However, this proposal only involves changes in zoning and general plan designations. The land will remain vacant under this proposal and, therefore, there will be no additional exposure to hazards resultina from this Droiect. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: 10.a. Increase in existina noise levels? 0/ 10.b. Exposure of people to severe 0/ noise levels? Comments: 10.all This project will not contribute to existing noise levels. Ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the oroiect site are within acceotable 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: 11.a. Fire protection? 0/ 11.b. Police protection? 0/ 11.c. Schools? 0/ 11.d. Maintenance of public facilities, 0/ includina roads? 11.e. Other Qovernmental services? 0/ R:\G P A\2002\02-Q260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-o2.doc 39 . . . . . . .. ~OJ~~H~lty;i> ,'n)t:-' -,~:::' -." -,;<\:~;, 1~0t'. . Potentially,. ... · "Sigilificaflt. ' ,cL:ess,Thim: ('",- :." :-',yo- ,- ~ .'. Significant ....u i'" "'. .. ..~Signifi<:ant ..1\10 '. ..... n.Elss, .... i Issues and Supporting Information Impaet. 'Mitigation.. .\ ":1 rflpacf, . . :Impact Sources 'dhC()rp()rat~d .. ." :,;... ;,~ I.:. .... Comments: 11.all I This Droiect will not have an impact on any public services. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS: Would the proposal Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial Alterations to the following utilities: 12.a. Power or natural Qas? 0/ 12.b. Communications svstems? 0/ 12.c. Local or regional water treatment . 0/ or distribution facilities? 12.d. Sewer or septic tanks? 0/ 12.e. Storm water drainaae? 0/ 12.f. Solid waste disposal? 0/ 12.Q. Local or reQional water supplies? 0/ Comments: 12.all I This proiect will not have an impact on anv utilities or service svstems. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 13.a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic 0/ hiQhway? 11,2) 13.b. Have a demonstrable negative 0/ aesthetic affect? 13.c. Create Iiaht or glare? 0/ Comments: 13.all This project will have no negative impact on scenic vistas or visual corridors. Future development of the site will impact views in this area. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 14.a. Disturb paleontological 0/ resources? 11,2) 14.b. Disturb archaeological resources? 0/ 11,2) 14.c. Affect historical resources? (1) 0/ 14.d. Have the potential to cause a 0/ phvsical chanae which would R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-02.doc 40 I?otentially' 1?0ti:lrl!ia,lly . . : $igrlificarif:' , Less Than . Sig"nifiq!jrit OiJress . Signiiica.nt No ^-. 'X .... ,-- " Issues and Supporting Information . . Irilpa9t .. ' Mitig,atiqn ;'; Impact . Impact . Sources . Incorporated;' ~. affect unique ethnic cultural values? m 14.e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential ./ imDact area? (1) Comments: 14.all There will be no excavation or grading activity associated with this project that could uncover paleontological, cultural or historical resources. No resources will be disturbed or chanoed as a result of this proiect. 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: 15.a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or ./ other recreational facilities? 11 ,2) 15.b. Affect existing recreational ./ opportunities? Comments: 15.all This project will create not impact opportunities for recreation. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 16.a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to ./ eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California historv or Drehistorv? 16.b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to ./ the disadvantage of long-term, environmental aoals? 16.c. Does the Droiect have imDacts ./ R:\G P A\2002\02-Q260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-2D-02.doc 41 . . . . . . Poteritiallw~ Significant . Impact I?otentially , " . ',. :',/,' -,.(,.- _," ' ^I,4 / _.' ,"\ Significant. Iless ,Than . c ",' .. ,. Unless>>' . 'Significant; :No ';. . :' ',.-- -' ,': :' ".:c: ,: ,,- ,", <i :~" ',.....: ',d'.. " _ C." '~..': C, ' -;V'" " , '. Mitigatipn,';~ i,;;Jnipact~\r;' i;lr'npact~ ",,::.<:+;:::<<,:.;;->,";;,' ,,';:',,::<"<..;~ \:v.;:~'" ,', """ :Incqr orated',,,... / . .'q0.';.\,t':', 7 " '.f' Issues and Supporting Ihformation . ,S.ources ....... . that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ('Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of robable future ro'ects. 16.d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectl ? Comments: This project will have no impacts on the immediate surrounding area, or to the City as a whole. Future development of the site may have some impact on the surrounding area, but those otential im acts will be discussed or miti ated as those a Iications are received. 0/ EARLIER ANALYSES. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. City of Temecula Development Code and Official Zoning Map R:\G P A\2002\02~0260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-2D-02.doc 42 . . . ATTACHMENT NO.5 EXHIBITS R:\G P A\2002\02-ll260 Valley Christian Fellowship\PC Staff Report continued to 11-20-ll2.doc 43