Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout090303 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the~ City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II] CALL TO ORDER Flag Salute: Roll Call: PUBLIC COMMENTS AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 - 6:00 P.M. Next In Order: Resolution: No. 2003-055 Chairperson Chiniaeff Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chiniaeff 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 no~t on the Agenda, a salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 1 A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of September 3, 2003 R:~P LANCO M blV~gendas~2003\09-03-03.doc 1 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of August 6, 2003 2.2 Approve the Minutes of August 20, 2003 COMMISSION BUSINESS Design Guidelines Workshop 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. New Items 3 Plannin.q Application No. PA03-0226 a Development Plan to desiqn and construct an eleven buildinq liqht industrial complex in two phases totalin.q 127,162 square feet on 8.91 acres located on the south side of Reminqton Avenue, approximately 900 feet west of Diaz Road, Stuart Fisk, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA03-0226 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0226, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT AN 'ELEVEN BUILDING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IN TWO PHASES TOTALING 127,162 SQUARE FEET ON 8.91 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF REMINGTON AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 909-370-012 AND 909-370-016 ~ R:\PLAN~OMM~gendas~2003\09-03-O3.doc 2 COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 September 17, 2003 R:~PLANCOMM~Agendas~003~09-03-03.doc 3 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday August 6, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Olhasso led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Olhasso, and Vice Chair Telesio Absent: Commissioner Mathewson and Chairman Chiniaeff PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 A.qenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 6, 2003 MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve Consent Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Chiniaeff and Mathewson who were absent. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the Minutes of June 4, 2003. 2.2 Approve the Minutes of June 18, 2003. 2.3 Approve the Minutes of July 2, 2003. 2.4 Approve the Minutes of July 16, 2003 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Item No. 2. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained from Item No. 2.3 and Commissioners Chiniaeff and Mathewson who were absent. 3 Director's Hearinq Case Update RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for July 2003. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve Consent Item No. 3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Chiniaeff and Mathewson who were absent. COMMISSION BUSINESS None. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Continued from July 2, 2003 4 Plannin.q Application No. PA02-0702 A Development Plan for Planninq Application PA02- 0702 for six (6), sin.qle story industrial buildinqs totalin.q approximately 82,220 square feet located on the north side of Zero Drive, approximately 500 feet east of Winchester Road (APN 909-370-007), Dan Lonq, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA02-0702 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0702, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT SIX FREE-STANDING, SINGLE STORY INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 82,220 SQUARE FEET. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ZEVO DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET EAST OF WINCHESTER ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 909-370-007 Associate Planner Long provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: That the applicant has been working with staff to enhance the architecture and to provide more detail on the landscaping plan, as requested at the July 2, 2003 Planning Commission meeting Architecture · That building nos. 1 and 6, located on Zevo Drive, include decorative stone, cornice, and pre-cast concrete columns at the arcade of the main entrance · That the arcade will project two feet from the main building and will include a cornice on top of the arcade, establishing a strong main entrance identity That functional windows (4' x 6') are proposed on the upper portion of the elevations and that windows will provide natural lighting; · That the southwest corner of building no. 1 and the southeast corner of building no. 6 will include corner treatments of stone and glass windows Landscaping · That the landscape plan has been revised to indicate the precise types of species, as requested by staff Conditions of Approval Associate Planner Long requested that the following conditions of approval be revised: Proiect Description - the following text should be amended: o The site is generally located on the north side of Zevo Drive approximately 150 feet east of Winchester Road Condition No. 17 - That under Planninq Division/General Requirements - delete the following (repeated under Condition No. 25): o The electrical transformer, gas meter and all other externally mounted utility equipment shall be located in a discreet location and screened with landscaping as approved by the Planning Director. By way of photos, Mr. Long continued with the staff report and advised that staff has determined that the revised plans will be consistent with the City's Design Guidelines and Development Code; that staff would recommend approval of the application with the modified conditions (as noted above); and that the project would be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Ralph Hastings, 5031 Birch Street, Newport Beach, architect for the project, stated that he was available for questions. Mr. David Silver, 20 Rivo Alto Canal, Long Beach, Manager of Hastings Partners, Inc., stated that he was also available for questions. At this time, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve the item with staff's recommendation with the noted amendment and deletion as noted on page 3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Chiniaeff and Mathewson who were absent. New Items P annin.q Application No. PA03-0249 To add two out-parcels into the Harveston Specific Plan and amend the Off c a Zoninq Map located north of the intersection of Ynez Road and Equity Drive within the Harveston Specific Plan, David Ho.qan, Principal Planner RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO ADD TWO OUT-PARCELS INTO THE HARVESTON SPECIFIC PLAN AND INCORPORATE TWO OUT-PARCELS INTO THE APPROPRIATE TEXT AND EXHIBITS OF SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION PA03-0249) Principal Planner Hogan provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: That Lennar Communities has acquired the two out-pamels and would like to incorporate them into the Harveston Specific Plan; that, thereby, amending the Harveston Specific Plan, adding the out-parcels into adjacent planning areas; that the Zoning Map be amended; and that a determination of consistency be made between the amended project and the Certified Final Environmental Impact Report (EiR); That staff has reviewed and conducted an analysis (included in the staff report) that the environmental impact to the project will meet the guidelines of the original certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Matthew Fagan, 42011 Avenida Vista Cadera, advised that he was available for questions. At this time, the public hearing was closed. 4 MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Chiniaeff and Mathewson who were absent. 6 Planninq Application No. PA03-0254 A request for a one-year Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map 29643 to subdivide 4.72 acres of vacant industrial land into three parcels located on the west side of Business Park Drive approximately 600 feet south of the Business Park Drive/Rancho Way intersection, Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA03-0245 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-048 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0254, A REQUEST FOR A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME (THE FIRST ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME) FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29643, TO SUBDIVIDE 4.72 ACRES OF VACANT LAND INTO THREE (3) PARCELS WITHIN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BUSINESS PARK DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 600 FEET SOUTH OF THE BUSINESS PARK DRIVE/RANCHO WAY INTERSECTION AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-068 Associate Planner Thornsley provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: That Tentative Pamel Map No. 29643 was first approved on May 3, 2000, in conjunction with a Development Plan (PA99-0478) to build three industrial buildings for which the applicant is requesting a one-year extension of time. In response to Commissioner Telesio's query regarding updating the indemnification condition, Director of Planning Ubnoske explained that this amendment had been requested by the City Attorney in order to update language. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Dennis Armstrong, 1530 Consumer Circle, Corona, applicant's representative, stated that he was available for any questions. At this time, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve staff's recommendation with the proposed modifications to the conditions of approval as requested by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Chiniaeff and Mathewson who were absent. 7 Plannin.q Application No. PA03-0323 To revise an approved si.qn proqram for Etco Plaza, a shoppinq center cons stin.q of two buildin.qs located at 27270 Madison Avenue, Matthew Harris, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO 2003-049 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0323, TO REVISE AN APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE ETCO PLAZA DEVELOPMENT GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE TERMINUS OF SANBORN DRIVE AT MADISON AVENUE ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 910-272-005 AND 006. By way of photos, Associate Planner Harris provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: That on April 9, 2003, the Planning Commission, although limiting the amount of second- story signage, approved the request for a Comprehensive Sign Program for the Etco Plaza development; that the property owner/developer attempted to appeal the Planning Commission's decision, but that the appeal period had expired; that the applicant is now proposing to revise the Sign Program, whereby the second-story signs (one sign on the north elevation and one sign on the south elevation) would be replaced with two second- story signs on each building (both east and west sides). That staff has determined that the proposed Sign Program revisions for the Etco Plaza development do not comply with the purpose and intent of the sign standards of the Development Code and, therefore, would recommend denial of the application. Requesting clarification of a primary tenant as opposed to a secondary tenant, Associate Planner Harris, for Commissioner Telesio, advised that those terms are not defined in the sign program nor in the minutes and that, therefore, would assume that such a determination would be made by the owner/leaser. Commissioner Telesio relayed his concern with the allocation of signage, noting that four tenants may occupy the first floor and that the primary tenant would occupy a majority of the space and be permitted a primary sign. At this time, the public was opened. Mr. Afshin Etebar, Manager, Etco Investments LLC, clarified that the north and south sides of the building are blocked by other buildings (Vista Paint and Billiard Depot); that the third floor will be occupied by a primary tenant; the second floor may be occupied by as many as six tenants but that a lease has been signed with one company for the entire second floor; and that because of restrictive signage, leasing of building space has become a problem. In response to Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Etebar stated that the signs would be lit at night. Mr. Jim Nadal, 41623 Margarita Road, Westmar Commercial Brokerage, provided a history of the building; advised of the changes made to the building at the request of the Planning Commission; and reiterated that signage is important in order to lease building space. At this time, public hearing was closed. Commissioner Olhasso commented on the aesthetic appearance of the Vista Paint building; expressed concern with the number of signs proposed for the first floor; and requested that the sign allowance be changed from four signs to three signs. Commissioner Guerriero spoke in favor of the applicant's request. Commissioner Telesio spoke in favor of the applicant's request. Planning Director Ubnoske requested clarification to the applicant's recommendation in that the north and south signs would be omitted. Commissioner Telesio stated that the second floor tenant would be granted the primary sign; that the secondary tenant, pending that the tenant occupy at least 50% or more of the second floor, would be granted signs on the north and south ends; and that a maximum of four signs be granted on the first floor. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to deny the staff's recommendation and approve the applicant's request, deletin.q the two north and south elevation signs of both buildings and approvin,q two signs, on the second floor, on the east and west sides of both buildings. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Chiniaeff and Mathewson who were absent. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS None. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Ubnoske reminded Commissioners Guerriero and Telesio that the meeting with the architect to discuss the Design Guidelines has been scheduled for August 13, 2003 from 1:00 P.M.- 2:30 P.M. 7 ADJOURNMENT At 6:42 P.M., Vice Chair Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 at 6:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Dennis W. Chiniaeff Chairman Debbie Ubnoske Director of Planning MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 20, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, August 20, 2003, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ALLEGIANCE Commissioner OIhasso led the audience in the Flag salute. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Telesio and Chairman Chiniaeff Absent: None PUBLIC COMMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Aqenda RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the Agenda of August 20, 2003. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. COMMISSION BUSINESS No items. R:\Minutes Planning Commission~003\08203 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS NEW ITEMS Plannin.q Application No. PA03-0245 Modify the current standards for businesses sellinq alcoholic bevera.qes to remove the requirement for a conditional use permit for .qrocery stores and specialty markets1 remove separation distance requirements, and revise the local standards for the concurrent sale of motor vehicle fuel and alcoholic beveraqes. This proposal includes makinq equivalent chanqes to the text of previously adopted commercially-based Planned Development Overlay zoninq districts {PDO-1, PDO-3, PDO-4, PDO-5 and PDO-6) located citywide RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-050 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY NOS. 5 AND 6 TO MODIFY THE REGULATIONS FOR BUSINESSES SELLING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES (PLANNING APPLICATION PA03-0245) Principal Planner Hogan provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: · That the proposed ordinance amendment is a follow up from an item that was presented to the Commission on March 19, 2003; That the City's Development Code currently requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for all businesses that sell alcohol; that the Police Department and staff is suggesting to eliminate the CUP requirement for grocery and department stores and specialty markets; that definitions for a convenience store and a specialty market have been added to the ordinance (see addendum to the staff report). By way of overhead, Principal Planner Hogan presented an overview of the three (3) types of businesses that would no longer require a CUP and the type of businesses that would still require a CUP. For Commissioner Guerriero, Principal Planner Hogan explained that staff has defined convenience market; noted that the term generally means that in most cases the market will be less than 5,000 square feet; that if a convenience market were 6,000 square feet in size but it met the other definition components of a convenience market, it would still be considered a convenience market; that the size of the business is not an absolute determinate of whether it should be considered as a convenience market or specialty market. 2 For Commissioner Mathewson, Assistant City Attorney Ahn advised that the language in the ordinance would provide the City flexibility and that verbiage with regard to square footage could be relocated at the end of the definition. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Principal Planner Hogan explained that the use of the term generally in the ordinance would turn the verbiage from an absolute prohibition into a guideline. Planning Director Ubnoske noted that the definitions were drafted by the Assistant City Attorney Ahn and after discussions with him and other jurisdictions, staff is in support of the proposed ordinance amendment. For Commissioner Telesio, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that the Planning Director's decisions are appealable to the Commission and fo the City Council. Principal Planner Hogan stated, for Commissioner Guerriero, that State Law does require a 600-foot separation from businesses selling alcohol and that the City's Development Code currently requires a 500-foot separation. For Commission Telesio, Principal Planner Hogan stated that the 500 foot separation would be removed from the proposed ordinance; that Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC) would require a 600 foot separation; and that the Commission and the Council has the authority to impose any operational conditions on businesses that require a Conditional Use Permit For Commissioner Mathewson, Lieutenant Pingel advised that the Police Department does tend to receive more complaints from restaurants with a full bar then businesses that only sell beer and wine. Principal Planner Hogan, in response to Commissioner Guerriero, noted that with the elimination of the CUP requirement, the City would not be able to enfome regulations except through the Police Department and ABC and that by retaining the CUP process, the City would have the ability to quickly and effectively address an issue. Advising that the Police Department does perform enforcement of alcohol and tobacco sales to minors, Lieutenant Pingel, for Commissioner Telesio, advised that it would not be typical for the Department to receive complaints with regard to convenience store alcohol sales within the City. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Principal Planner Hogan stated the CUP process would be no more onerous than the Development Plan process but that it would permit the City the ability to attach greater findings and/or greater conditions if the City were to have a concern. For Commissioner Mathewson, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that those restaurants only serving beer and wine could be listed under the CUP category. At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one to speak, the public hearing was closed. Chairman Chiniaeff stated that any restaurant serving alcohol should be required to apply for a CUP. MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation, modifying the verbiage with regard to square footage from 5,000 to 6,000 square feet, as noted above. (The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso; see next page.) 3 Commissioner Telesio requested that staff eliminate the verbiage with regard to square footage. Because it would provide flexibility and authority to the City, Commissioner Mathewson relayed concern with removing the CUP process. At this time, Commissioner OIhasso seconded the motion to further discuss the square footage requirement. Commissioner Mathewson suggested that the Commission review the proposed language regarding the concurrent sale of motor vehicle fuel and alcoholic beverages. AMENDED MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff recommendation, deletin.q verbiage with regard to square footage from the definition of a specialty market and a convenience market/mini mart; amendin.q that all restaurants serving alcohol should be required to obtain a CUP; and amending the definition of a convenience market, as follows: convenience markets may be found in conjunction with vehicle fuel stations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olhasso and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Planninq Application No. PA03-0272 To construct, establish and operate three professional office bu dinqs totalinq 58,625 square feet located on the east side of Rid.qe Park Drive, south of Rancho California Road within the Crystal Ridqe Business Park RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a Negative Declaration; 3.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003--051 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0272 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT, ESTABLISH AND OPERATE THREE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 58,625 SQUARE FEET ON 5.6 ACRES. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE, SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 940- 310-028 & 032. Associate Planner Harris provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: That the planning application is a request to construct a professional office complex consisting of three buildings within the Crystal Ridge Business Park -- Building B (middle) is the largest and tallest building (three story) with Buildings A & C being two- store buildings; · That the three buildings would be interconnected via sidewalks and court yards; that a circular driveway is being proposed for the front of the complex; · That intensive decorative paving treatments have been proposed throughout the project site; · That the three buildings will be a Mediterranean architectural style; that each building will have unique features while complementing the other buildings; That the buildings will incorporate a variety of offsets and pop-outs and several useable balconies; that the buildings will have varying rooflines; that Building B will have a corner element consisting of a glass globe; and that entrances will utilize a heavy wood trellis; That landscaping will consist of 13 different varieties of trees; that 48" box specimen trees will be planted along the front of the building for shading; that 21 different varieties of shrubs will be planted throughout the property; That an Initial Environmental Study was required due to the site being larger than five acres; that a comment letter, which was distributed at the meeting, was received by AQMD concerning the project's emissions, stating a conflict with their requirements; that in response to the letter, the applicant submitted a computer model AQMD; and that in response to the computer model, AQMD submitted another letter, relaying no concern. In closing, Mr. Harris advised that staff would recommend approval of the Negative Declaration and Development Plan with the conditions of approval. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Reynolds, 43529 Ridge Park Drive, Redhawk Communities, requested that Condition No. 41 (regarding waiving the right to protest the formation of Assessment District) be modified for the benefit of both the City and the applicant. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Public Works Deputy Director Parks advised that Condition No. 41 is a standard condition for properties west of Murrieta Creek. Planning Director Ubnoske noted that Condition No. 41 would waive the right to protest the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District but that during the process, the applicant may still protest the assessments. For Commissioner Telesio, Mr. Reynolds commented on the design of the project -- early California architecture/Irvine Gill architecture, noting that the building's design will change with every plane; that the different color awnings on the northeast elevation are not seen on one plane because of the geometry of the building; and that window openings for Buildings A & C s were intentionally different to create variation. For Commissioner Olhasso, Mr. Reynolds reviewed the measurements of the colored glass dome roof proposed for Building B. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Pleased with the project, Commissioner Guerriero thanked the applicant for proposing such a beautiful building. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Item No. 3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous decision. Planninq Application No's. PA02-0512 a Tentative Parcel Map request to divide 14.48 acres into 8 parcels, PA03-0233 a Development Plan for a mixed-use professional center consistin.q of 5 office buildinqs totaling 97,506 square feet and 2 restaurant/retail buildin.qs, totalinq 12,000 square feet, and PA03-0234 a Conditional Use Permit for a self-storaqe facility consistinq of a 1-story 1,307 square foot office, three 1-story storaqe buildinqs and two 2-story storage buildings for a combined total of 108,844 square feet located on the north side of Hi.qhway 79 South, east of Avenida de Missiones, and the future Rancho Pueblo Road, known as Assessor Parcel Nos. 959-070-001 thru 003, Thomas Thornsley, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No's. PA02-0512, PA03- 0233, and PA03-0234 based on the Determination of Consistency with a project (PA01-0522) for which a Negative Declaration was previously adopted pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 - Subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations; 4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-052 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0512 FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 30797, A REQUEST TO DIVIDE 14.48 ACRES INTO 8 PARCELS WITH A MINIMUM GROSS LOT SIZE OF 43,677 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, EAST OF AVENIDA DE MISSIONES, AND THE FUTURE RANCHO PUEBLO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO'S. 959-070-001 THRU 003 4.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-053 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0233 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 11.02 ACRE MIXED-USE PROFESSIONAL CENTER WHICH INCLUDES FIVE OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 97,506 SQUARE FEET, AND TWO RESTAURANT/RETAIL BUILDINGS, TOTALING 12,000 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, EAST OF AVENIDA DE MISSIONES, AND THE FUTURE RANCHO PUEBLO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO'S. 959-070-001 THRU 003 4.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003-054 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0234 A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE OPERATION, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SELF-STORAGE FACILITY CONSISTING OF A 1-STORY 1,307 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, THREE 1-STORY STORAGE BUILDINGS AND TWO 2-STORY STORAGE BUILDINGS FOR A COMBINED TOTAL OF 108,844 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, EAST OF AVENIDA DE MISSIONES, AND THE FUTURE RANCHO PUEBLO ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 959-070-001 AND -002. By way of overheads, Associate Planner Thornsley provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following: · That the proposed 14.48 acres is located on the north side of Highway 79 South, east of Avenida de Missiones; · That internal circulation will allow both vehicular and pedestrian traffic to access all the facilities; · That the proposed northern area will have a single-story facility along the outside with a two-story building in the center; That the style of the architecture for all buildings will be Spanish Eclectic, which will provide extra accenting and more variation in the wall planes; that materials will consist of mixed stucco with various colors; That the proposed landscaping will consist of berms and shrubs along the highway to screen the parking lots; that areas along the building mass that face the single-family homes will consist of trees, shrubs, and ground covers. In closing, Mr. Thornsley stated that the projects are consistent with the Planned Development Overlay-6 (PDO-6) zoning and land use designation of the General Plan and that staff would recommend approval by the Planning Commission. For Commissioner Mathewson, Associate Planner Thornsley stated that Rancho Pueblo Road will eventually tie into other roads and that once the road is connected to another public road, the Public Works Department will accept Rancho Pueblo Road for maintenance. Once the road has connected to another public road, Associate Planner Thornsley, for Chairperson Chiniaeff, stated that an offer of road dedication would occur on the parcel map; that the wall accents on the front elevation of the storage building will be applied to the back side wall along Los Rancheros. For Commissioner Telesio, Associate Planner Thornsley clarified that shrubs along with a variety of berms (ranging from two feet to a maximum of four feet) will be located along Highway 79 and that the proposed berm will not be a continues berm in order to allow view corridors. For Chairperson Chiniaeff, Associate Planner Thornsley stated that proposed signage will be consistent with the PDO. For Commissioner Guerriero, Mr. Jim Benaday, 4403 Manchester Road, Encinitas, Landscape Architect, stated that a combination of Sweet Bay and Strawberry Trees as well as a trellis are being proposed along the north side of the storage facility; that the Sweet Bay trees are a medium to fast growth tree and will grow to 60 feet; and that irrigation has not been proposed but that the site will consist of a combination of drip and sprays systems. Associate Planner Thomsley presented the Commission with a list of conditions to be added to the Tentative Map (PA02-0512,) consisting of new language (proposed by the Planning Department) dealing with paleontology and amheological sites and the remaining conditions pertain to the rewording of conditions (regarding street improvements and on-site drainage facilities) as has been discussed with the Public Works Department and the applicant. For Chairman Chiniaeff, Planning Director Ubnoske stated that as a result of previous projects, new language relative to archeology and paleontology has been added and the Assistant City Attorney has assisted with drafting this new language that will become standard language for the Planning Department. As a result of the Temecula Creek Village Project, Principal Planner Hazen, for Commissioner Telesio, stated that new language has been added to fully explain the procedure for halting work in the event that archeological resources were found and that the new language will assist the City and the applicant in understanding that if archeological resources were found that the site will be shut down. Commissioner Mathewson requested to change the second sentence of the first paragraph to state: Director of Planning at his/her discretion may require the property owner ... At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Mel Malkoff, 18456 Lincoln Circle, Villa Park, representing the applicant, thanked the Planning, Public Works, Fire, and Building and Safety Departments for their assistance with this project. Mr. Malkoff voiced concurrence with the proposed conditions with the exception of Condition No. 35 (regarding good faith effort for off-site acquisition/improvements for Street A - copies distributed to the Commission) and requested that this condition be removed. Mr. Malkoff stated that this condition will be problematic in the implications of exposure to his client. He noted that the applicant has received no response from the hospital for cooperation of the roadway; that the applicant, due to the hospital's non-response, would not be desirous of paying for the condemnation considering it is not a public road; that since it is not a public road, the City would not exercise eminent domain; and that, therefore, requested that Street A revert to a two- lane driveway on the applicant's property. Chairman Chiniaeff explained that as per State Law, if the City were to impose a condition on a project and the applicant would make a good faith effort to work it out, then the City may condemn at the applicant's expense. Associate Planner Thornsley stated that the eminent domain may not be used for condemning a driveway or for private purposes and that these driveways or roads would be private until there would be a connection. Chairman Chiniaeff suggested that if the commemial driveway should be designed as a street, the requirements for a driveway should be modified so that a temporary curb may be installed; that if there were development adjacent to the properly, a driveway or street could be connected to both properties. Mr. Malkoff requested that the fee discrepancy for Condition No. 1 be corrected; that Condition No. 9 be modified to allow onsite sale of accessory memhandise such as packing materials; and that no onsite packaging popcorn would be utilized. Planning Director Ubnoske agreed to allow onsite sale of accessory merchandise as long as the merchandise be retained inside the structure. At this time, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Chairman Chiniaeff moved to approve staff recommendation, deletin.q Condition No. 35 for PA02-0512, amending Condition No. 1 of PA03-0234 to reflect to correct fee amount, amendinq Condition No. 9 of PA03-0234 to allow onsite sale of accessory merchandise, addin.q three additional conditions as recommended by staff (see page 8). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous decision. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS Commissioner Guerriero thanked the Planning and Public Works Departments staff for their efforts with the change in architecture and design aspects which have been presented to the Commission over the last several months. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Ubnoske announced that the Design Guidelines Consultant will be making a presentation at the next Planning Commission meeting. Principal Planner Hazen provided a brief overview of several format changes and procedures that will be implemented for staff reports and presentations. Planning Director Ubnoske inquired whether a member of the Commission would be interested in attending the State APA Conference in Santa Barbara on September 28th through October 1 st, 2003. ADJOURNMENT At 7:35 P.M. Chairman Chiniaeff formally adjourned the meeting to the next re.qular meetin.q to be held on Wednesday September 3, 2003 at 6:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Dennis W. Chiniaeff, Debbie Ubnoske Chairman Director of Planning ITEM #3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION September 3, 2003 Planning Application No. PA03-0226 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Stuart Fisk, Assistant Planner Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA03-0226 (Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act; 2. Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0226, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT AN ELEVEN BUILDING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IN TWO PHASES TOTALING 127,162 SQUARE FEET ON 8.91 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF REMINGTON AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 909- 370-012 AND 909-370-016 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: KREC II, LLC PROPOSAL: A Development Plan to design and construct an eleven building light industrial complex in two phases totaling 127,162 square feet on 8.91 acres LOCATION: Located on the south side of Remington Avenue, approximately 900 feet west of Diaz Road. EXISTING ZONING: Light Industrial (LI) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Light Industrial (LI) South: Light Industrial (LI) East: Light Industrial (LI) West: Light Industrial (LI) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park (BP) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant R:~D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Staff Report.doc SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant East: Vacant and Industrial Buildings South: Industrial Buildings and Vacant Lots West: Industrial Buildings PROJECT STATISTICS Lot area 8.91 gross (8.32 acres net) Building Summary: Phase 1 Building 1: 6,257 sq. ft. Building 2: 5,097 sq. ft. Building 3: 21,425 sq. ft. Building 4: 6,043 sq. ft. Building 5: 10,604 sq. ft. Building 6: 23,319 sq. ft. Total Area: 72,745 sq. ft. Phase 2 Building 7: 9,677 sq. ft. Building 8: 11,144 sq. ft. Building 9: 23,058 sq. ft. Building 10: 5,363 sq. ft. Building 11: 5,175 sq. ft. Total Area: 54,417 sq. ft. Total Building square footage: 127,162 square feet Building height: 24'-0" maximum (single story) Landscaped area: 96,043 square feet (24.7%) Parking required: 268 spaces Parking provided: 290 spaces Lot coverage: 32.8% Floor area ratio: .328 BACKGROUND An application for a Development Plan was submitted on April 22, 2003. A DRC meeting was held on June 5, 2003 to discuss site, landscaping, architecture and other departmental issues. On June 30, 2003, the applicant submitted revised plans. On July 18, 2003 the applicant responded to County comments on the geotechnical report prepared for the project by the applicant. On July 22, 2003, staff received correspondence from the Rivemide County Geologist approving the revised geotechnical report. On July 31, an Initial Study was completed by staff for the project and circulated for review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Planning Application No. PA03-0226 is a Development Plan to design and construct an eleven building light industrial complex in two phases totaling 127,162 square feet on 8.91 acres located on the south side of Remington Avenue, approximately 900 feet west of Diaz Road. R:\D PX2003\03 0226 Remington Business Center, Staff Report,doc 2 The one-stow buildings will be single-tenant and multi-tenant buildings ranging in width from 73 feet to 130 feet along Remington Avenue. Buildings are oriented toward internal drive aisles at angles to Remington Avenue. The drive aisles provide breaks in the buildings along Remington Avenue in four locations that range from 40 to 140 feet in width. Each suite will have its own entry fronting internal drive aisles and each suite will also have its own roll-up door leading to shared gated and screened yards containing loading areas. The buildings are set back approximately 30 from the front property line at the easternmost portion of the project where the buildings are only slightly above the grade of Remington Avenue and approximately 85 feet from the front property line at the westernmost portion of the project where the buildings are approximately 15 feet below the grade of Remington Avenue. The front setback also includes trellised patio areas for employee eating areas immediately in front of three of the five buildings along Remington Avenue. The eastern (side yard) and southern (rear yard) building setbacks are 10 feet and the western (side yard) building setbacks, where there is a 20-foot high slope, are 42 feet. The sloped areas along the western project boundary and the northwestern project boundary are heavily landscaped with 15 gallon, 24" box and 36" box trees and 5 gallon shrubs as further discussed in the analysis section below. A landscape buffer of varying depths surrounds the entire site and trees and scrubs are abundant within the site at planters along building fronts and at parking area planters. Access to the site is provided at three locations off Remington Avenue. An internal drive aisle loops around the interior of the site and the drive aisles directly off Remington Avenue bisect the looped drive aisle to lead directly to the rear of the site. Parking is provided throughout the site and the drive aisle layout allows for circulation of emergency vehicles and provides for multiple routes through the site. Refuse areas are proposed at various locations behind buildings, walls, planter areas and screened storage yards so as not to be visible from Remington Avenue and to have limited visibility from on-site drive aisles and paring lots. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Initial Study prepared for the project identified potentially significant effects related to a fault line and fault zone on site that can be mitigated to a point where no significant effects would occur. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. ANALYSIS Site Plan. The project conforms to all the development regulations of the Business Park (BP) zoning district. The building setbacks either meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Development Code and the .33 Floor Area Ratio is well below the target ratio of .40 for this zoning district. The proposed 32.8% lot coverage is also well below the maximum permitted lot coverage of 40% and staff has determine that 268 parking spaces are required for the project, while a total of 290 spaces have been provided. The proposed site plan provides adequate circulation for vehicles anticipated to utilize the site, as well as for emergency vehicles. Buildings are oriented toward internal drive aisles at angles to Remington Avenue. The drive aisles provide breaks in the buildings along Remington Avenue in four locations that range from 40 to 140 feet in width. Although the proposed buildings are not oriented toward the street, the site has been designed to maximize the visibility of the front facades of the project's eleven buildings through their placement and orientation, while loading areas are fully screened utilizing building placement, orientation, walls and/or landscaping. This site design results in minimized building massing along R:~D PX2003\03-0226 Remington Business CentefiStaff Report.doc 3 Remington Avenue while allowing for substantial visibility of front building fa(;ades from Remington Avenue. The Site Plan (Exhibit E) provides locations for monument signs and the Building Elevations and Floor Plans (Exhibit G) locate areas for tenant building signs, which have been conditioned to be in compliance with the Sign Program (Exhibit J) submitted with this application. Outdoor storage areas are provided for each building and are all located behind buildings or landscaped screen walls. The site plan has been designed to utilize the angle of the buildings to Remington Avenue and building placement so that the storage areas will not be visible to the public from Remington Avenue. Loading areas are provided within the screened storage areas for each building (including those less than 10,000 square feet), thereby exceeding the loading space requirements of Section 17.24.060 of the Development Code, which does not require a loading space for buildings less than 10,000 square feet. Two phases of development are proposed for the 127,162 square foot light industrial complex. Phase one of the project will consist of buildings 1 through 6, located on the western half of the project site and comprising 72,745 square feet. Phase two of the project will consist of buildings 7 through 11, located on the eastern half of the project site and comprising 54,417 square feet. As designed, phase one can be developed as a stand-alone project, providing required screening for all loading and trash enclosure areas, meeting cimulation requirements (including Fire Department access requirements), and providing for full landscaping of all of the phase one portion of the project and a temporary 20 foot deep hydroseed landscaped area onto the phase two portion of the site along the boundary of phase one and two. Since the timeframe for development of phase two is undetermined and is anticipated to not be within six month of the completion of phase one, the project has been conditioned temporarily seed and irrigate the phase two area for dust and soil erosion control in accordance with Section 17.08.060.C.2 of the Development Code. A lot line adjustment is proposed to follow the drive lane between phases one and two of the project. The project has been conditioned to record the proposed lot line adjustment prior to issuance of a building permit. Architecture The proposed buildings are consistent with the Development Code and Design Guidelines and are compatible with other adjacent buildings within the business park. The proposed architecture includes painted concrete tilt-up buildings and the use of glass, bull nosed cornice entry panels, accent tiles, cast "vee" reveals, wrought iron gates, and trellis structures. Bull nosed cornice panels, glass and painted metal canopies are proposed at building entries. The buildings include various breaks and angles in the wall planes, which, in conjunction with building placement, provides for screening of the loading areas as well as breaking up building mass from street view. The roofline has varied parapet heights at office entry locations and where the wall plane changes. The use of painted metal oanopies is not a typical material used in the business park, however, it functions as an alternative material that softens the concrete structure while providing interest at office entries. Features that serve to minimized building massing while allowing for substantial visibility of front building facades from Remington Avenue include the angles of the buildings to the street, angles in wall planes, building offsets, wrapped corner treatments at entryways and the separation of buildings (ranging from 40 to 140 feet in width). Trellis patio cover structures at the front of the buildings along Remington Avenue also serve to provide visual offsets and add interest to the street facing facades. Panels with a bull nosed cornice on the parapet at the building entries break up vertical massing and the doors at the entries are recessed behind the main wall while the entry projects 12 inches beyond the main wall, providing three building planes at the building entries. Although the rear of the buildings along the southern boundary of the project site has little R:~D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Staff Report.doc 4 articulation, this is acceptable to staff because the rear of these buildings will not be visible to the public. Landscapinpl The landscape plan conforms to the landscape requirements of the Development Code and Design Guidelines. Tree and shrub placement will serve to effectively screen onsite parking areas and effectively soften building elevations. The landscaping also serves to tie the site together in that the landscaping along Remington Avenue will provide strong visual identification of the street frontage associated with the project, and the landscape scheme presented along the street frontage will be carried throughout the project. The project proposes to landscape 96,043 square feet or 24.7 percent of the site, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 20 percent in the LI (Light Industrial) zone. The project provides landscaping around the perimeter of the site, with a 29 to 40 foot landscaped setback (averaging approximately 30 feet) along Remington Avenue and varied landscape setbacks around the building footprints. At the northwest corner of the site, where the project's grade is approximately 15 feet lower than that of Remington Avenue, the slope has been heavily landscaped with Red Crepe Myrtle trees (36" box), Chinese Flame trees (24" box), Chitalpa trees (15 gallon), California Pepper trees (15 gallon), Photina shrubs (5 gallon) and Purple New Zealand Flax shrubs (5 gallon) to minimize the visibility of building rooftops from Remington Avenue. The project proposes a total of 337 trees and 4,572 shrubs located throughout the project site, which will establish a high standard for future development on surrounding parcels. Access and Circulation The Public Works Department has analyzed the projected traffic impact of the project and has determined that the impacts are consistent with the traffic volumes projected for the site by the previously approved City General Plan EIR. The Fire Department also reviewed the plan and determined that there is proper access and circulation to provide emergency services to the site. Environmental Determination The project is larger than five acres in size and does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA. Therefore, an Initial Environmental Study was prepared. The Study did identify potentially significant environmental impacts for the project in association with geologic problems because the project site is located within a State Designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and a portion of the site is located within the 100-year flood zone. The mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate environmental impacts have been incorporated into the project design. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project in accordance with Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines. The public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration was from July 31, 2003 to August 20, 2003. At the time this report was prepared, no written comments had been received. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project is summarized in the following table: R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Staff Report.doc 5 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Light and glare which could affect Use lighting techniques consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Palomar Observatory and day or nighttime views. Directly or indirectly destroying any During excavation/construction, if amhaeological/cultural unique paleontological or resources are discovered, owner shall advise City of archaeological resources, discovery and no further excavation or development may occur until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures are approved. The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an opportunity to monitor ground- disturbing activities. Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreement/treatment plan with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, which may allow for the presence of tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources found on the project area to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. Prior to ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. if human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated and the County Coroner's office and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and Miranda, Tomaras, Ogas & Wengler, LLP will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of such remains. Expose people or structures to Habitable structures shall be constructed outside the potential effects involving rupture of "restricted use zone" of the main fault trace on the site and a known earthquake fault, as development shall occur in accordance with delineated on the Alquist-Priolo recommendations set forth in the geotechnical study Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. prepared for the project. Unstable soil conditions from Soils report prepared bya registered Civil Engineer shall be excavation, grading or fill. submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of a grading permit and development shall occur in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the soils report and the geotechnical study prepared for the project. Exposure of people or property to Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards and utilize earthquake hazards, landslides construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform mudflows, or expansive soil. Building Code. Place within a lO0-year flood hazard Make a fair share contribution toward regional flood control area structures which would impede facilities through payment of flood mitigation fees. or redirect flood flows. R:'tD PX2003X03-0226 Remington Business Center, Staff Report.doc 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff had determined that the proposed eleven building light industrial complex, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and all applicable ordinances, standards, guidelines, and policies. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Development Plan with the attached conditions of approval. FINDINGS Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F) 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 proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Business Park (BP) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan has listed the proposed uses, including light manufacturing, warehouse, and office, as typical uses in the Business Park designation. The proposedproject is consistent with the use regulations outlined in the Development Code for the Light Industrial zoning district. The project has been conditioned by the Building Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in the City of Temecula DevelopmentCode. Theproposedarchitectureandsitelayoutfortheprojecthas been reviewed utilizing the Industrial Development Performance Standards of the Development Code. The proposed project has met the performance standards in regards to circulation; architectural design and site plan design. R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Staff Report.doc 7 Attachments 1. Exhibits - Blue Page 9 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C. Zoning Map 2. Site Plan - Blue Page 12 3. Building Elevations and Floor Plans - Blue Page 13 4. Grading Plan - Blue Page 14 5. Landscape Plan - Blue Page 15 6. Sign Program - Blue Page 16 7. PC Resolution No. 2003- - Blue Page 17 Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 20 8. Initial Environmental Study- Blue Page 34 R:XD P',2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Staff Report.doc 8 ATrACHMENT NO. 1 EXHIBITS R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Staff ReporLdoc 9 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA03-0226 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 3, 2003 VICINITY MAP R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Staff Repod.doc ]0 CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION - (BP) Business Park EXHIBIT C - ZONING DESIGNATION - (LI) Li~]ht Industrial CASE NO. - PA03-0226 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 3, 2003 R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Staff Report,doc ATTACHMENT NO. 2 SITE PLAN R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Staff Report.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 3 BUILDING ELEVATIONS AND FLOOR PLANS R:~D P~003\O3-0226 Remington Business Center, Staff Report.doc t3 ti, ~K ii ATTACHMENT NO. 4 GRADING PLAN R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Staff Report,doc ]4 ATrACHMENT NO. 5 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:~D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Staff Report.doc 1.1.1 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 SIGN PROGRAM R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Staff Reporl.doc ~z Dz ~zo _zo _zo OZ OZ OZ A'FI'ACHMENT NO. 7 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Staff Report.doc PC RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0226, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT AN ELEVEN BUILDING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IN TWO PHASES TOTALING 127,162 SQUARE FEET ON 8.91 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF REMINGTON AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET WEST OF DIAZ ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NOS. 909- 370-012 AND 909-370-016 WHEREAS, KREC III, LLC, filed Planning Application No. PA03-0226 (Development Plan Application), in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on September 3, 2003, 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 in opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application PA03-0226; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. by reference. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated Section 2. Findinqs. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 176.05.01 OF of the Temecula Municipal Code: A. 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 proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for Business Park (BP) development in the City of Temecula General Plan. The General Plan has listed the proposed uses, including light manufacturing, warehouse, and office, as typical uses in theBusinessParkdesignation. Theproposedprojectisconsistentwiththeuseregulations outlined in the Development Code for the Light Industrial zoning district. The project has been conditioned by the Building Department and Fire Prevention Bureau to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Staff Report.doc 18 The proposed project is consistent with the development standards outlined in the City of Temecula DevelopmentCode. Theproposedarchitectureandsitelayoutfortheprojecthas been reviewed ut/Tizing the Industrial Development Performance Standards of the Development Code. The proposed project has met the performance standards in regards to circulation; architectural design and site plan design. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to Section 15070 of the California Environmental Quality Act and adopted by the Planning Commission. No further environmental review is required for the proposed project. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally approves the Application, a request to construct an eleven building light industrial complex in two phases totaling 127,162 square feet as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Commission this 3rd day of September 2003. ATTEST: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairperson Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certifythat PC Resolution No. 2003- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of September 2003, by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R;~D P~2-003\03-0226 Remington Business Center'Staff Report,doc EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:'~D P~2003\03~226 Remington Business Center, Staff Report.doc 20 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PA03-0226 (Development Plan) Project Description: A Development Plan to design and construct an eleven building light industrial complex in two phases totaling 127,162 square feet on 8.91 acres. DIF Category: Business Parldlndustrial Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 909-370-012 and 909-370-016 Approval Date: September 3, 2003 Expiration Date: September 3, 2005 PLANNING DIVISION Within 1. 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 Sixty-four Dollars ($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. 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 (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly notify both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this Development Plan. R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Staff Report.doc 2] 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. The applicant shall comply with the conditions of approval for Parcel Map No. 24085-3 unless superseded by these conditions of approval. The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the approval of this development plan. 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 Director of Planning may, upon an application being filed within thirty days prior to expiration, and for good cause, grant a time extension of up to three one-year extensions of time, one year at a time. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits E (Site Plan), F (Grading Plan), G (Building Elevations & Floor Plans), H (Landscape Plan), I (Color and Material Board), and J (Sign Program) contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Within two weeks of the project's approval the applicant submit to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the approved Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "G", the colored architectural elevations, to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. All utilities and light poles shall be shown and labeled on the landscape plans and appropriate screening shall be provided. A three-foot (3.0') clear zone shall be provided around fire check detectors as required by the Fire Department before starting the screen. Group utilities together in order to reduce intrusion. Ground covers shall be planted below all shrubs on slope areas in order to provide erosion control while shrubs establish. Areas proposed for development in another phase occurring not within six months of the completion of the previous phase shall be temporarily seeded and irrigated for dust and soil erosion control pursuant to Section 17.08.060.C.2 of the Development Code. R:\D P~2.003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Staff Report.doc 15. The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly below and with Exhibit "1" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Concrete (walls) - Main Body Concrete (walls) - Entryways Concrete (walls) - Accent Panels Accent Tiles Arizona Metal Entry Canopy Glazing Frazee 8724 M (Meadowlark) Frazee 7752 W (Oakbuff) Frazee 7760 W (Weaverbird) Tile (Umbria Walnut) Pre-finished clear anodized aluminum ~,4" ISB - 214 Sapphire Blue Vari - Transparent Green Monolithic Vision Glass 16. The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities, which are to be screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines. 17. A separate building permit shall be required for all signage. 18. Trash enclosures shall be provided to house all trash receptacles utilized on the site. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 19. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans and electrical plans for verification of proper placement of transformer(s) and double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companies. 20. The applicant shall submit a parking lot lighting plan to the Planning Department, which meets the requirements of the Development Code and the Palomar Lighting Ordinance. The parking lot light standards shall be placed in such a way as to not adversely impact the growth potential of the parking lot trees. 21. An appropriate method for screening the gas meters and other externally mounted utility equipment shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. 22. A copy of the Grading Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department and Planning Department. 23. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that Ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 24, * Lighting shall be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 25. Habitable structures shall be constructed outside the 120-foot "restricted use zone" of the main fault trace which lies along the western edge of Pamel 1, and development shall occur in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the EnGEN Corporation Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Study for the project dated April 22, 2003. 26. * Development shall utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the California Building Code. 27. * The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an opportunity R:\D P~003~03-0226 Remington Business Center, Staff Report,doc 23 to monitor ground-disturbing activities and participate in the decisions regarding collection and curation of any such resources. 28. The Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreement/treatment plan with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits, that sets forth and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native American cultural resources. The agreement/treatment plan shall contain provisions for the treatment of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and Native American human remains that may be uncovered during the project. The agreement/treatment plan may allow for the presence of Pechanga tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. 29. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition. 30. Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor witl be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. 31. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's otfice and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and Miranda, Tomaras, Ogas & Wengler, LLP will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of such remains. 32. * If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the determination is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the properly owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning. * The above conditions of approval with asterisks are also Mitigation Monitoring Measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 33. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule. 34. The lot line adjustment shown on Exhibit E (Site Plan) shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Staff ReporLdoc 24 35. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "H", or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The 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: a. 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 Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). e. A landscape maintenance program, which details the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth and landscape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program. 36. The Planning Director shall approve the Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. 37. The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing plotted on a 9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch talt numerals spaced 9-inches apart. The numerals shall be painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow paint applied over a contrasting background. The address shall be oriented to the street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street. Prior to Release of Power 38. The property owner shall fully install all required landscaping and irrigation, and submit a landscape maintenance bond in a form and amount approved by the Planning Department for a period of one-year from the date of the first occupancy permit. 39. Prior to release of power for development within phase one of the project, all site improvements related phase one, including but not limited to parking areas, striping and employee patio areas) shall be installed. Prior to release of power for development within phase two of the project, all remaining site improvements shall be installed. 40. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 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 site plan all existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Staff Report.doc General Requirements 41. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. 42. 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. 43. All grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 44. The Developer shall construct public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: drive approaches. b. Storm drain facilities. e. Sewer and domestic water systems. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 45. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved bythe Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 46. The Developer shall post secudty 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. 47. A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Direotor of 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. 48. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Pubtic 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. 49. 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. R:~ P~2.003\03-O226 Reminglon Business Center, Staff Reporl.doc 26 50. 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. 51. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District d. Planning Department e. Department of Public Works 52. 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. 53. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 54. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 55. * A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. * The above conditions of approval with asterisks are also Mitigation Monitoring Measures of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 56. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of 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. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. d. 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. 57. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works. R:",D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Staff Report.doc 27 Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: drive approaches. Storm drain facilities. Sewer and domestic water systems. 58. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer and reviewed by the Director of 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. 59. The building pad shall be cedified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 60. The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent property. 61. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 62. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. 63. The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.08. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 64. 65. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: a. Rancho California Water District b. Eastern Municipal Water District c. Department of Public Works 66. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance darnaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Staff Report,doc 28 FIRE DEPARTMENT The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 67. Final fire and lite safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy; use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes, which are in force at the time of building, plan submittal. 68. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a total fire flow of 3850 GPM with a 3 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A) 69. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 2 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and off- site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B). 70. As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (CFC 903.2) 71. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 72. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 73. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 74. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Staff ReporLdoc 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shal~ be signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, and spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 ) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and industrial buildings shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6) inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and/or numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9) Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the fire sprinkler riser room door. (CFC 902.4) Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department R:~D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Staff Report.doc 30 access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81) 85. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any other hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) Special Conditions 86. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan and a simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire prevention for approval. 87. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105) 88. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E) BUILDING AND SAFETY 89. County Geologist Certification of fault line location will be required as part of plan review. 90. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. 91. The City of Temecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TU MF). Upon the adoption of this ordinance on Mamh 31,2003, this project will be subject to payment of these fees at the time of building permit issuance. The fees shall be subject to the provisions of Ordinance 03-01 and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 92. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. 93. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 94. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. R:~) P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center,Staff Report.doc 3t 95. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998) 96. Provide disabled access from the public right-of-way to the main entrance of the building. 97. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 98. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 99. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation o[ exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 100. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be ~n accordance with the provisions of the 2001 edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. 101. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 102. 103. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans prior to permit issuance. Provide electrical plan including Icad calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 104. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 105. Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 106. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 107. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. 108. Show all building setbacks. 109. Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the hours of eonstruction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No. 0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site within one- quarter mile of an occupied residence. Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays COMMUNITY SERVICES General Conditions 110. All landscaping and parkways including areas within the ROW, fencing and on site lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or an established maintenance association. R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Staff ReporLdoc 111. The developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within the trash enclosure areas. 112. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 113. The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 114. If additional streetlights on Remington Avenue are to be installed as a result of this project, then prior to issuance of building permits or the installation of the street lights, which ever occurs first, the developer shall complete the TCSD application process, submit the approved Edison streetlight improvement plans and pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of street lighting into the TCSD maintenance program. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 115. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated May 13, 2003 from the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. 116. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated May 7, 2003 from Rancho Water. 117. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated July 22, 2003 from the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant's Signature Name printed Date R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Staff Report.doc C6 nty of t ver me DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: May 13, 2003 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Thomas Thomsley FROM ~fi GREGOR DEIIF. NBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA03-0233 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA034)233 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. 2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment (including vending machines) 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. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 461-0284). c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: d) · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3. · Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2.) · Waste reduction management. A letter from the Waste Regulation Branch Ogaste Collection/LEA). GD:gd (909) 955-8980 NOTE: CC: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health Clearance. Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials ~--~ ~ ~--'~- ~ ~ .~ [i [!i! t~llY 1 9 2003 i.[)! May 7, 2003 City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 24085-3 AND PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 24085 APN 909~370-012 AND APN 909-370-016 [REMINGTON BUSINESS CENTER] To Whom It'May Concern: Please be advised that the above-referenced .property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water and sewer service, therefore, would be available upon completion of fmancial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner and the construction of all required on- site and/or off-site water and sewer facilities. This' project has the potential to become a commercial condominium site with individual building ,owners and a homeowners' association maintaining the common property and private water and fire protection facilities. As a condition Of the project, RCWD requires that the City of Temecula include a Reciprocal Easement and Maintenance Agreement for these on-site private water facilities. In addition to this agreement, RCWD will require individual water meters for each building if a condominium conversion takes place. 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 that assigns.~vater~ you should have any questions, please contact an'Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 03XSB:at I 1 I~F012-T6WQF C: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor Bud Jones, Senior Engineering Technician CO OF RIVERSIDE (~a×:§099553157 Jul 24 2 .~ 7:47 P.O'l Richard iC Lashbrook Agency Director COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSP OR TA TION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY Planning Department Ron Goldman Interim Planning Director July 22, 2003 EnGEN Corporation Fax: (909) 296-2237 Attention: Osbjom Bratene Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Study, Remington Business Center, Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 909-370-012 and 909-370-016, Parcel Map 24085-3 and Parcel Map. 24085-4 Remin~on Avenue, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, Project Number: T2775-SGS, GEO01167, PA03-0226 County Geologic Report (GEO) No. 1167 was prepared for this project (PA03-0226 - 12 Commercial Buildings in City of Temecula) by EnGEN Corporation and is entitled"'Supplemental Geotechnical Eno.~aeering Study, Remin~on Business Center, Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 909-370-012 and 909-370° 016, Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 24085-3 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 24085~1, Remington Avenue, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California", and dated April 22, 2003. In addition, the following reports were submitted for this project and are herein incorporated as a part of GEO No. 1167: 1. EnGEN, lune 20, 2OO3, "Cover Letter for Referenced Doeuments Pertaimng to Supplememal Geoteclmical Engineering Study, Remington Business Center, Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 90%370- 012 and 909-370-016, Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 24085-3 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 24085-4, Remington Avenue, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California". 2. EnGEN, April 29, 1998, "County Response Letter, Geologic Report Number: 950, Tentative Parcel Map Number 28657, Parcel Map Number: 24085 and 24086, Letter dated April 4, 1998". 3. EnGEN, August 29, 1997, "Fault Location Investigation, Existin. g Restricted Use Zone, Parcel Maps 24085 and 24086, City of Temecula, County of Riveiside, California". 4. EnGEN, November 21, 1996, "Geotechnlcal Report of Rough Grading, Lots 1-10, Parcel Map 24085, Diaz Rd., City of Temecula, Riverside County, Cahfornia". 5. EnGEN, August 29, 1996, Updated Geoteclmical / Geological Engineering Study, Proposed Expansion of Existing Business Center, Parcels 1 through 10 of ParCel Map 24085, Diaz Road, Temecula, Riverside County, California". 6- Schaefer Dixon Associates, August 25, 1989, "Response to County Geologic Review Sheet, Tentative Parcel Maps 24085, 24086, 21029, 21382 rind 21383, Rancho California, Califom/a'. 7. EnGEN, July 18, 2003, "Response to County Reviw Comments for Geologic Report (GEO) 1167 .(PA 03-0226), Remington Business Center, Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 909-370-012 and 909-370- 016, Parcel Map 24085~3 and Parcel Map 24085-4, Remington Avenue, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California". Riverside Office. 4080 Lmrnon S~eer, 9 Floor P.O. Box 1409- Riverside, California 92502-1409 (~Q9)~9~55.3~00 'Fax (909) 95~73157 lndio Office' 82-675 Hwy 111, 2"a Floor Room 209, Indio. California 92201 (760) 893-8277 '. F~ (769).863r79q0 Mumeta Office- 39493 Los Alamo$ Rd. Murrieta, California 92563 _..f799!~0'~!70' F~ (~09).~00-~4~ GEO No. 1167 concluded: 1. The ma/n fault trace (western) RUZ ("restricted use zone") lies along the western edge of Parcel I and extends approximately 1120 to 128 feet into the parcel. 2. The branch fault trace (eastern) RUZ lies on the eastern comet of Parcel I and extends · approximately 15 to 30 feet into the parcel. 3. The minimum width of the RUZ is 120 feet. 4. The potential for fault rapture outside of the RUZs is considered unlikely. 5. The revised plans conform to the intent of the recommendations of the subject report (GEO NO. 1167 - EnGEN April 22, 2003 report). GEO No. 1167 recommended: 1. No structures for human occupancy should be constructed within the RUZs. 2. ;Protection, such as flexible connections and pressure seasitive valves, should be provided for utility 1./roes within the RUZs. 3. The Elsinore Fault should be used as the Design Fault for engineering analysis. GEO No. 1167 satisfies the requirement for a surface fault rapture hazard report. Final Planning Department approval of GEO NO. 1167 is hereby grantekt for planning purposes. Additional review and/or conditions may be imposed by the Building and Safety Department upon application for grading permits Th~nk you for the opporturlity to review this case for the City of Temecula. Please call mc at (909) 955- 3211 or David Jones at (909) 955-6863 if you have any questions. Sincerely, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' Ron Gold~n, Interim P1onning Dixector ~yn, d A. ~ard(,on,~Chief Engineering Geologist RG 6E~/CHC~71,' CEG 2168 cc: Applicant: John Bragg, Kearny Real Estate Company, Fax: (858) 546-2812 Planner: Thomas Thomsley, Temecula Commurdty Developmant Department, Fax: (909) 694-6477 File: Temecula Review, GEO01167, PA03-0226 Riverside Office' 4080 Lemon Street, 9'~ Floor lndio Office' 82-675 Hwy 111, 2"d Floor P.O. Box 1'46~. Riverside, California 92502-1409 Room 209, lndio, California 92201 . (~09)955-3200.Fa,1(909)955-3157 (760) 863-8277 ' l~gx (760) 863-7040 Mu~rieta Office' 39493 Los Alamos Rd. Murrieta, California 92563 (~09) 600-6170' Fax(909) 600-6145 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:~D P~2003't03-0226 Remington Business Center.taft Report.doc 34 City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 ~ Environmental Checklist Project Title Planning Application No. PA03-0226 Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Contact Person and Phone Number Thomas Thomsley, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location Located on the south side of Remington Avenue, between Diaz Road and Winchester Road in the City of Temecula. (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 909-370-012 & 909-370-01 Project Sponsor's Name and Address KREC II, LLC, c/o Kearny Real Estate Company, 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 500, San Diego, CA 92122 General Plan Designation Business Park (BP) Zoning Light Industrial Description of Project PA03-0226 is a request for approval of a Development Plan for a two phase, 12-building light industrial complex totaling 127,162 square feet on 8.91 acres. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting North: Light Industrial (vacant) East: Light Industrial (industrial buildings) South: Light Industrial (industrial buildings and vacant lots) West: Light Industrial (industrial buildings) ~ther public agencies whose approval None. required R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Initial Study.doc Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Il The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use Planning Hazards Population and Housing Noise X Geologic Problems Public Services X Water Utilities and Service Systems ! Air Quality Aesthetics Transportation/Circulation Cultural Resources Biological Resources Recreation Energy and Mineral Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance None Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially impacts (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Assistant Planner Title Stuart Fisk Printed name R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Initial Study.doc 2 I. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Suppodin~ Information Sources impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Physically divide an established community? X b. Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation plan? Comments: .0. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The project site is vacant and surrounded by industrial lots or buildings. The development of this site will be consistent with the surrounding properties. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not conflict with the applicable General Plan designation, environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation of Business Park (BP) as well as the zoning of Light Industrial (LI). Impacts from ali General Plan land use designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR have been applied to this project where necessary. Furthermore, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are being given the opportunity to comment on the project, and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or policies. The project site has been previously graded and services are available into the area. There will be no impacts on adopted environmental plans or policies. The proposed project will not conflict with any currently applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The site has been graded and is not within any currently applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Although the project site is a part of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), the MSHCP has not yet been adopted by City Council. Furthermore, the project is consistent with the MSHCP as approved by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting) Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ~[~ Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Initial Study.doc 3 ~ ' I ~Potentially Significant Unless Less Than significant Mitigation Sign[ticani I~n Information Sources~ -Displace substantial numbers of people~ n~ the I construction of replacement housing elsewhere? I Comments: 2.a. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and zoning designations of Business Park (BP) and Light Industrial (LI). The proposed project may cause some people to relocate to (or near) Temecula to be closer to their place of employment. However, the project will not induce substantial growth beyond what is projected in the City's General Plan. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b, c. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, as the site is vacant property zoned for industrial development. Therefore, the project will not necessitate the construction of replacement housing due to displacement of housing or people. No irnpacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project? Potenfially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated impact Impact a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving.' i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the ~ X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 4.2. (Source 1, Fi~lure 7-1, Page 7-6) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) iv) Landslides? (Source 4, Section 2.1, Page 2) X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Source 4, Section 2.1, Page 2) d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B X of the Uniform Building Code (1998), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of X septic tanks or alternative waste-water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Comments: 3.a.i. The most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area shows that the site is located within a State Designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. A R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Initial Study.doc Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Study (prepared by EnGEN; Source 4, Sections 3.0 - 9.0) was submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this study will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this study will be utilized in the development of this site, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from earthquake fault zones. Mitigation measures will be adopted as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. After mitigation measures are implemented, the potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level of impact. 3.a.ii. There may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or expansive soils. There are known fault hazard zones on the property and the project is located in Southern California, an area that is seismically active. Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, which will be consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. Furthermore, the project will be conditioned to provide a soil report concurrent with the submittal of precise grading plans and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. The soil report will contain recommendations for compaction of the soil, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. The recommendations contained in the abovementioned Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Study (prepared by EnGEN; Source 4, Sections 3.0 - 9.0) will also be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Mitigation measures will be adopted as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. After mitigation measures are implemented, the potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level of impact. 3.a. iii. The project site, which has been previously graded, is located within an area delineated as a liquefaction hazard. However, per Section 2.6 of the abovementioned Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Study (prepared by EnGEN; Source 4), "The site is underlain by bedrock and 12 to 14-feet of compacted fill over alluvium and bedrock. Due to the density of the bedrock and the thickness and density of the fill material, the potential for liquefaction is Iow." Potentially significant impacts associated with the development of this site were mitigated at the time of grading and will be further mitigated during building construction, which will be consistent with engineered and Uniform Building Code standards. In addition, a soil report will be submitted and reviewed as part of the precise grading plan submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will be utilized in the development of this site, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from liquefaction. The recommendations contained in the abovementioned Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Study (prepared by EnGEN; Source 4, Sections 3.0 - 9.0) will also be used to determine appropriate conditions of approva~ prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Mitigation measures will be adopted as pad of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. After mitigation measures are implemented, the potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant leve~ of impact. 3.a.iv, c. Based on the relatively flat topographic conditions at the site, the potential for hazards associated with on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse is considered Iow. Mitigation measures will be adopted as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.b. Based on the relatively flat topographic conditions at the site, the potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is considered Iow. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. .d. The Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Study (prepared by EnGEN; Source 4, Section 2.3.4) classifies the soil on site as silty sand with an expansion index of 0.0. The soil c~assification and expansion index indicate that the soil on site is not an expansive soil. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Initial Study.doc 5 3.e. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project will be required to hook up to the existing public sewer system. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there : would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site X or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Comments: 4.b, f. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Development will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of ground R:\D P~003\03o0226 Remington Business Center,Initial Study,doc ,d. .8. 4.j. waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on-site or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff that is created. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The project will be conditioned and designed to accommodate the drainage created as a result of the subject site. In addition, the project will be conditioned and designed so that the drainage will not impact surrounding properties. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project proposes an eleven building light industrial complex and will not place housing within a 100- year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. A portion of the project containing five buildings is located within the lO0-year flood limits of Murrieta Creek, thereby placing within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures that could impede or redirect flood flows. The project, as conditioned, requires the developer to pay flood mitigation fees to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. After mitigation measures are implemented, potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level of impact. The project is located within the dam inundation area identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. However, impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency response systems. Less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project because mitigation measures are in place for the site and general area of the site. The project site will not be subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow as these events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO issues and Supporting information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact impact a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially i X to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? D Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people? R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Initial Study.doc 7 Comments: 5.a-c. The project will not conflict with applicable air quality plans nor violate air quality or pollution standards The project proposes a twelve (12) building industrial complex on 8.91 acres. The project will be the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as depicted in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Source 3; pages 6-10, Table 6.2). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no known sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity. The development of the project for industrial buildings will create minor pollutants during the grading and construction phase of the project emanating from fugitive dust and small quantities of construction equipment pollutants. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. The future light industrial uses are not anticipated to generate significant pollutants. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.e. The proposed industrial complex is not anticipated to create objectionable odors. However, some objectionable odors may be produced during the grading and construction of buildings, and by the potential users. These potential impacts, however, are anticipated to be of short duration and would not affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact. ; 5.d. 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significanl Unless Less Thin Significant Mitigation Significant NO ~ssues and Sup~ortlng Information Sources impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of × service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either × an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks? Comments: 6.a, b. There will be an increase in vehicle trips on adjacent streets once the proposed project is developed. However, the City's Traffic Engineer has indicated that the project would have a less than significant impact to the existing road system because the existing roadways have been developed consistent wit~, the City's General Plan in anticipation of the area's proposed industrial development. Due to tht project's consistency with the General Plan, no further traffic studies were required for this project. The"" project will be required to contribute to the Traffic Signal and Street Improvement components of the R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Initial Study.doc Development Impact Fees prior to the issuance of any building permits. No significant impacts are anticipated. Development of this property will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. This site is not within the French Valley Airport influence area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access and will not interfere with access to nearby uses. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The proposed project will meet industrial use parking requirements per Chapter 17.24 of the City of Temecula Development Code. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will be required to be designed consistent with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, no impacts will result from this project. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Suppodin(J Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X ~1 through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat X or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected X wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat X D Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Initial Study.doc Comments: 7.a-d. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded. .6, Currently there are no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants on the site, nor does the site contain wetlands~ Furthermore, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location, so it is not anticipated~ that the project would reduce the number of species. The site is surrounded by industrial development and will not create a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area as defined by the City of Temecula's Potential Environmental Sensitive Habitat Areas map and will not result in an impact to locally adopted policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project site, which has been rough graded, is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Payment of this mitigation fee was addressed prior to issuance of a grading permit for the rough grading. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: 8.a, b. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource nor in the loss of an available, locally impodant mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified the City of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these areas are determined as not containing deposits of significant economic value based upon available data in reports prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous __ materials into the environment~ .... ~ R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center,initial Study.doc potentially Potentially Significant Untess Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting information Sources Impact Incorporated impact Impact D Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or X acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of X hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where ~ res~idences are intermixed with wildlands? ~,omments: 9.5. 9,6. The streets leading to the project are not transportation routes designated for commercial haulers who may be transporting hazardous materials. However, because the property and the surrounding area are and will be used for industrial buildings, future tenants may include businesses that require the delivery of hazardous materials. When an application is made for future tenant improvements, a Statement of Operations and a Business Plan will be required for review by the City's Fire Department to identify the likelihood of hazardous impacts and to assess the appropriate mitigation measures. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project proposes to create a 12 building industrial complex. Since the activities of future tenants will be addressed during tenant improvements as noted in 9.a. above, it is not anticipated that the project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. This site is within one-quarter mile of a proposed college campus site at the northwest intersection of Dendy Parkway and Diaz Road. The operation of construction equipment and machinery during the development of this site may emit some hazardous emissions and or handle some hazardous material. However, these emissions and material should be of limited quantities over a short duration of time. No impacts are anticipated. This project site is not located near a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or private airstrip. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal. R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Initial Study.doc 9.g. The project will take access from maintained public streets and therefore will not impede emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.h. This project site is not adjacent to wildlands and is not susceptible to wildland fire danger. Therefore no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of X standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels X in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient X noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: 10.a. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. However, noise levels will be required to be within established noise level standards. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No activities are anticipated within the proposed project that would expose persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No impacts are anticipated. The project will create some noise levels over that currently emanating from the vacant land. However, those noises are not anticipated to create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 10.d. The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during construction. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered very annoying. However, noise from construction of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity to Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. in industrial areas. No significant impacts are anticipated. 10.e, f. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public or private use airport. Therefore. working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport and impacts will result from this project. , lO.b. 10.c. R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Initial Study.doc ~1. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associates with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Thar~ Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting information Sources Impact incorporated Impact impact a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X Comments: 11. a, b, d, e. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The development of the site will incrementally increase the need for these services. However, the project will contribute its fair share through the City's Development Impact Fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated. 1.c. The project itself is not creating residential use and therefore will have no impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. Development of the parcels within the project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the payment of applicable School Fees at the time the parcels are developed. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water X drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? D Result Jn a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider, which serves or may serve the project, that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to provider's existing commitments? R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\initial Study.doc Potentially Potentially significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No issues and supporting fnf0rmati0n SourCes Impact Incorporated Impact Impact : f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? Comments; 12.a, b,e. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Moreover, the project will be conditioned to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that will be monitored by the Department of Public Works. No significant impacts are anticipated. The project will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities. The project will require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities on site that will connect to the existing system currently in place along Remington Avenue. The design of the existing system is sufficient to handle the runoff from this project and will not require the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Drainage fees are required by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to reimburse the county for the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated. 12.d. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements.,~ While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmenta~ Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)/' The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.f,g. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by future development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Signigcant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impac~ Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or X quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Initial Study,doc 14 Comments: 13.a. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway and the City does not have any designated scenic highways and the project site, which is surrounded by industrial development, is not located in an area containing a scenic vista. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b-c. The project involves an 8.91 acre site that is relatively flat and that has been previously graded. The project site is not located near a state scenic highway and does not contain trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.d. The project will increase the potential for significant impacts from light and glare. Future development on the parcel created by the project will produce and result in light and glare with the instatlation of new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The future development of the project site will be conditioned to comply with Ordinance No. 655 Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution. After mitigation measures are implemented, potentiatly significant impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level of impact. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57 b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5? ¢. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X ~_.__ resource or site or uni~ic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: 14a, b, d. The site has been already been rough graded. However, if at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the determination is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning. In addition, the applicant shall contact the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians to afford the Band an opportunity to monitor ground-disturbing activities and participate in the decisions regarding collection and curation of any such resources. The project has been conditioned to enter into a pre-construction agreement/treatment plan with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians prior to the issuance of grading permits. These mitigation measures will be adopted as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. With appropriate mitigation measures p~aced on the project, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Initial Study.doc 14c. The site is located in an area of high paleontological sensitivity pursuant to the General Plan (Source 1, Figure, 5-7). Although the site has been previously graded, it is recommended that all grading activity and any substantial subsurface excavation, such as building footing and trenching for utilities, should be closely monitored. Mitigation measures will require continuous on site monitoring during activities that would bring about substantial subsurface excavation. With these mitigation measures place the potentially significant impacts will be reduce to a less than significant level of impact. 15. RECREATION. Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Supporlin9 Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing X neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require X the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: 15.a,b. The project will have no impact on the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities, or affect existing recreational opportunities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. Agricultural Resources. Would the project: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues and Suppoding Information Sources impact Incorporated ~mpact impact a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland X of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resoumes Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, X due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland, to non-agricultural use? Comments: 16a,c. 16b. The project site has been previously graded for development and is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic past has not ever formerly been used for agricultural purposes. In addition, this property is not considered prime or unique farmland of statewide importance pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency or the City of Temecula's General Plan. Therefore, there are no impacts anticipated as e result of this project. The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula, and is not regulated by a Williamson Act contraot. Therefore, there are no impacts anticipated as a result of this project. R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\lnitiat Study.doc D MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c. Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: 17.b. 17.c. This site, which has been previously graded and is surrounded by industrial development, does not contain any viable habitat for fish or wildlife species. This is an in-fill development and it does not have the potential to: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population fo drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The cumulative effects from the project are not considered significant because the subject site is being developed in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development Code. All cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site, as well as the surrounding developments, were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Given the projects consistency with the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impact related to the development of the project site will not have a significant impact. The project will not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The project has been designed and will be developed consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Initial Study~doc Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which the,~ address site-specific conditions for the r. BE~_ect. 18.a. The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study. These documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Planning Depadment located at 43200 Business Park Drive. 18.b. There were earlier impacts, which affected this project, however it was difficult to assess whether they were adequately addressed as mitigation measures. 18.c. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is attached. 2. 3. 4. SOURCES (Available at the Temecula Planning Department) City of Temecula General Plan dated November 9, 1993. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report dated July 2, 1993. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Study for Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 24085-3 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 24085-4 by EnGEN Corporation, April 22, 2003 R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Initial Study.doc Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA03-0226 (Development Plan) AESTHETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare which could affect Palomar Observatory and day or nighttime views. Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Planning and Building and Safety Departments for approval. Lights shall be fully shielded so that direct light does not leave the property. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning and Building and Safety Departments CULTURAL RESOURCES General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Directly or indirectly destroying any unique paleontological or archaeological resources. If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeological/cultural resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence of cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately advise the City of such and the City shall cause ail further excavation or other disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the significance of the find. Upon determining that the determination is not an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning. R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 1 Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Place the above condition of approval on this project so that if cultural resources are encountered during grading, work shall be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations. During the grading process. Planning and Public Works Departments General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Directly or indirectly destroying any unique paleontological or archaeological resources. The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall be contacted to afford the Band an opportunity to monitor ground- disturbing activities and participate in the decisions regarding collection and curation of any such resources. Place the above condition of approval on this project so that the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians has the oppodunity to monitor grading of the project. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Planning and Public Works Departments General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Directly or indirectly destroying any unique paleontological or archaeological resources. The Applicant shall enter into a pre-construction agreement/treatment plan with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, prior to the issuance of grading permits, that sets forth and contains the terms and conditions for the treatment of discoveries of Native American cultural resources. The agreement/treatment plan shall contain provisions for the treatment of all Native American cultural items, artifacts, and Native American human remains that may be uncovered during the project. The agreement/ treatment plan may allow for the presence of Pechanga tribal monitors during any ground-disturbing activities. Place the above condition of approval on this project to require a pre-construction agreement/treatment plan between the applicant and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians prior to the issuance of grading permits. Prior to issuance of a grading permit. Planning and Public Works Departments R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center,Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 2 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Directly or indirectly destroying any unique paleontological or archaeological resources. The Applicant and/or landowner agrees to relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including all archeological artifacts, that are found on the Project area to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition. Place the above condition of approval on this project so that if cultural resources are encountered during grading, ownership shall be relinquished to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for proper treatment and disposition. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Planning and Public Works Departments General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Directly or indirectly destroying any unique paleontological or archaeological resources. Prior to any ground disturbance activities a qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. Place the above condition of approval on this project so that a qualified archaeological monitor will be present and will have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities, in consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and their designated monitors, to evaluate the significance of any archaeological resources discovered on the property. During the grading process. Planning and Public Works Departments General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Directly or indirectly destroying any unique paleontological or archaeological resources. If any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 3 Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Indians and Miranda, Tomaras, Ogas & Wengler, LLP will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of such remains. Place the above condition of approval on this project so that if any human remains are encountered on the project site, all ground disturbing activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately and the County Coroner's office and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and Miranda, Tomaras, Ogas & Wengler, LLP will be contacted to arrange for the treatment of such remains. During the grading process. Planning and Public Works Departments GEOLOGY AND SOILS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Habitable structures shall be constructed outside the 120- foot "restricted use zone" of the main fault trace which lies along the western edge of Parcel 1, and development shall occur in accordance with the reoommendations set forth in the EnGEN Corporation Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Study for the project dated April 22, 2003. In addition, proposed project will be conditioned to utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the California Building Code. Submit building plans consistent with proposed site plan for the project that incorporate the recommendations of the soils report and the EnGEN Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Studyfor Building & Safety Department review and approval. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Public Works and Building & Safety Departments General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check and development shall occur in accordance with the recommendations set forth in the soils report and the EnGEN Corporation Supplemental R:\D P~003\03-0226 Remington Business Center, Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc 4 Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Geotechnical Engineering Study for the project dated April 22, 2003. Submit soils report with initial grading plan check erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public. Grading plans shall incorporate the recommendations of the soils report and the EnGEN Supplemental Geetechnical Engineering Study. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. A registered Civil Engineer shall certify building pads. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY General impact: Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center~Vlitigation Monitoring Program.doc 5 Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Make a fair share contribution toward regional flood control facilities. Payment of flood mitigation fees to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Prior to the issuance of grading permits. Department of Public Works R:\D P~2003\03-0226 Remington Business Center\Mitigation Monitoring Program,doc 6