HomeMy WebLinkAbout022293 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 22, 1993 6:00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mira Loma Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Fahey
ROLL CALL:
Blair, Chiniaeff, Ford, Hoagland and Fahey
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item nqt listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning
Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for
individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental
Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA 92'0054, Conditional Use P~rmit
E: Bryan Knowels
40525 Winchester Road
To construct a 3,400 square foot Big O Tire Store in the Scenic
Highway Commercial (C-P-S) zone.
Proposed Negative Declaration
Craig Ruiz
Approve
Case No,:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental
Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
City of Temecula
City Wide
Review and forward a recommendation of approval to the City
Council to adopt the Master Plan as an element of the General
Plan.
Re-certify Environmental Impact Report for the City's General
Plan
John Meyer/Steve Rose/Beryl Yasinosky
Recommend Approval to the City Council
WIMBERVG~FLANCOIVI4~GENDA$~2-22o93
Reviled Februe~/16, 1993 vgw
NON-PUBLIC HEARING
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental
Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Director's Hearing Cases Update
Planning Department
City Wide
Showing the Commission how many cases have gone to
Director's Hearing since July of 1992.
N~
Debbie Ubnoske
N~
e
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental
Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Additional Extension Period for Plot Plans, PubliG Use Permits,
and Conditional Use Permits
City of Temecula
City Wide
To amend Ordinance No. 348 to allow for two additional one
year Extensions of Time..
N/A
Dabble Ubnoske
Approve
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Determination of General Plan COnsistency
Native American Observer Training Association
South of Temecula Creek and West of Interstate 15 .
The transfer of 17.97 acres from the Native American Observers
Training Association (NAOTA) to the U.S. Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
Environmental
Action: N/A
Planner: Dave Hogan
Recommendation: Approve
Case No.:
Applicant:
'Location:
Proposal:
Presenter:
Recommendation:
Planning Commission Meetings
Planning Department ·
Vail Elementary School
Consideration of having meetings the first Monday of every
month, instead of the 1st and 3rd Monday of every month.
Gary Thornhill
Approve
Next meeting: March 1, 1993, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Lama Drive,
Temecula, California.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
W1MeERVG~LANCOMM~GENDA$~,2-22*93
ITEM #2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 22, 1993
Case No.:
PA92-0054, Conditional Use Permit
Prepared By:
Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission:
1. ADOPT The Negative Declaration for PA92-0054,
Conditional Use Permit; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 93- approving PA92-0054,
Conditional Use Permit based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Big O Tire Store
REPRESENTATIVE;
E. Bryan Knowles
PROPOSAL:
A request to construct a 3,200 square foot Big O Tire Store on
a .42 acres lot in an existing commercial center.
LOCATION:
40525 Winchester Road in the COSTCO shopping center.
EXISTING ZONING:.
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture)
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
PROPOSED LAND USE
DESIGNATION:
Community Commercial
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
COSTCO
Vacant
Vacant
Rancho California Water District Well Site
R:\S\STAFFRPTtS4PA92.PC 2/17/93 idb 1
PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Area Calculation
Use
Building Area
Landscaping
Paving Area
TOTAL
Square feet
3,420
3,820
11,125
18,380
% of site
19%
21%
60%
100%
Parking Spaces Required 24
Parking Spaces Provided 24
BACKGROUND
The proposed project is located on Lot No. 10 of Parcel Map No. 26852 in what is commonly
known as the COSTCO Commercial Center. To date, COSTCO and Danny's Car Wash have
been constructed on parcels 13 and 11 respectively. Chevron Service Station (parcel 6) and
Pep Boys (parcel 7) have received City approval and are currently under construction. Parcel
8 has received approval but has yet to begin construction for a fast food drive-through Yellow
Basket Restaurant.
This project was submitted to the Planning Department on December 10, 1992. It was
subsequently scheduled for Development Review Committee (DRC) on January 7, 1993.
Minor changes have been made to the site plan, the landscape plan and the elevations to the
satisfaction of Staff.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of a full service tire store with six (6) service bays. The
building pad has already been graded as a part of mass grading for Parcel Map No. 26852.
Circulation
The ingress and egress to the site is provided on the northerly property line with one driveway
opening. The driveway connects with a drive aisle that provides access to Winchester Road.
A twenty five foot (25') transportation easement has been provided along Winchester Road
consistent with City policies. A 15 foot road easement in favor of the .Rancho California
Water District (RCWD) runs along the drive aisle of the site to provide access to the adjacent
RCWD well site. A portion of the RCWD easement runs concurrently with the 25 foot
transportation easement. This portion of the site will be covered with turf-block to allow
adequate access to the well site and preserve the open space along the 25 foot transportation
easement.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.PC 2/17/93 Idb 2
LandscaDino
Street landscaping will be continued within the 25 foot transportation easement along
Winchester Road. The proposed on-site landscaping scheme is designed to screen the tire
store from the public streets and adjoining properties with the exception of the driveway
openings to the north.
Architecture
The materials used in the proposed buildings consist of a terra cotta tile for roofing materials,
white and gray stucco for the walls, burgundy accent paint for the trims and windows and
burgundy accent tile on the building.
The building is orientated to screen the six service bays from Winchester Road. All service
bays face the interior of the center and have been screened by landscaping where possible.
ANALYSIS
The site design, architecture and landscaping meet the standards set by Ordinance No. 348.
Proper circulation has been provided to the site and within the site. The architecture is
consistent with both surrounding and approVed projects within close proximity. The
landscaping is designed to screen the site from Winchester Road and adjacent properties and
in Staff's opinion, it is successful in doing so.
ZONING, FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The project site is zoned C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) and all the adjacent parcels are
also zoned C-P-S with the exception of the parcel across the street on Winchester Road. This
parcel is currently zoned A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture) with a proposed zone change to S-P
(Specific Plan). The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the C-P-S Zone
and Ordinance 348.
The proposed Draft General Plan Land Use Designation is Community Commercial. The
current SWAP designation for the proposed site is "C", Commercial. The project is located
within the COSTCO shopping center, and will likely be consistent with the City's future
adopted General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared for this project which determined that although the
proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact
would result to the natural or built environment in the City because the mitigation measures
described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project and a Negative
Declaration has been recommended for adoption.
The project has been mass graded under Parcel Map No. 26852. Environmental concerns
relative to this parcel were mitigated under the previously adopted Negative Declaration for
the underlying Parcel Map No. 26852.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.PC 2/17/93 klb 3
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed tire store has been designed with sensitivity relative to its visibility from
Winchester Road. The project conforms with Ordinance No. 348 and 460 and is consistent
with the current Draft General Plan designation of Community Commercial and the SWAP
designation of Commercial.
All potential environmental impacts have been mitigated to a level of non-significance by the
project's design and Conditions of Approval.
FINDINGS
There is a reasonable probability that Case No. PA92-0054, Conditional Use Permit will
be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a
reasonable time and in accordance with State Law due to the fact that the proposed
tire store is consistent with the existing C-P-S zoning and the Draft General Plan land
Use Designation of Community Commercial.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to
the fact that the proposed use is consistent with the existing zoning, the Draft General
Plan Land Use Designation of Community Commercial, and existing developments in
the surrounding area.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the
fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies
with State Planning Laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due
to the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance
No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include measures which will
ensure that public health and welfare will be maintained.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties due to the fact that the proposed development is consistent with
current surrounding development and Ordinance No. 348.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area due
to the fact that the surrounding properties to the north, east and west are zoned
Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) which are consistent with the project zoning and
proposed use.
R:~S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.PC 2/17193 Idb 4
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and
connects with Winchester Road.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project due to the fact
that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigation for the project.
10.
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project as represented on the site plan.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
Resolution - Blue Page 6
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11
Initial Study - Blue Page 16
Exhibits - Blue Page 17
A. Vicinity Map
B. SWAP Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. COSTCO Site Plan
G. Elevations
R:~S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.PC 2/17/93 klb 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 93-_.
R:\S\STAFFRPT%54PA92.pC 2/17/93 klb 6
ATrACI{MENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 93-_
A RESOLUTION OF TgE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CASE NO. PA92-
0054, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION OF A BIG O TIRE STORE LOCATED ON
~ NORTH SIDE OF WINCI~,~TER ROAD IN ~
COSTCO SHOPPING CENTER; PARCEL NUMBER 11 OF
PARCEL MAP 26852, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 910-
110-071.
WI~.REAS, E. Bryan Knowles fried application for Case No. PA92-0054, Conditional
Use Permit in accordance with the Riverside County I-and Use, Zoning, Planning and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WFrI?.REAS, said Conditional Use Permit application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Conditional Use Permit on
February 22, 1993 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission approved
said Conditional Use Permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
· Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall
adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, ff all of the
following requirements are met:
1. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the
general plan.
B. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
R:\S%STAFFRPT~54PA92.PC 2/17/93 klb 7
1. Them is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will
be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied
within a reasonable time.
2. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan ff the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan.
3. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements
of state law and local ordinances.
C. The Riverside County General Plan, as mended by the Southwest Area
Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as
the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan
guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General
Plan.
D. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the SWAP and meets the
requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general
E. The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the foliowing:
1. There is reasonable probability that Case No. PA92-0054, Conditional Use
Permit as proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied
or which will be studied within a reasonable time due to the current SWAP designation of "C" ,
Commercial.
2. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan ff the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan because the project is surrounded with commercially designated parcels and is located
within the COSTCO Commercial Center.
3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements
of state law and local ordinances, in that the project is consistent with Ordinance Nos. 348.
4. Pursuant to Section 18.26(e), no Conditional Use Permit may be appmved
unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety
and weftare of the community, and further, that any Conditional Use Permit approved shall be
subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general weftare
of the community.
R:\S~STAFFRP'~54PA92.PC 2/17/93 klb 8
F. The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed Conditional Use Permit,
makes the following f'mdings, to wit:
1. There is a reasonable probability that Case No. PA92-0054, Conditional
Use Permit will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in
a reasonable time and in accordance with State law due to the fact that the tim store is consistent
with the existing zoning and ~e Draft General Plan land use designation of Community
Commercial.
2. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future General Plan, ff the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to
the fact that the proposed use is consistent with the existing zoning, the Draft General Plan Land
Use Designation of Community Commercial and the SWAP land use designation of Commercial,
and the existing developments of the surrounding area.
3. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws
due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies
with State Planning Laws.
4. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, cireuhtion patterns, access, and intensity of use due to
the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348.
5. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or weftare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include measures which will
ensure that public health and weftare will be maintained.
6. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in
scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties due to the fact that the proposed development is consistent with current
surrounding development and Ordinance No. 348.
7. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area
due to the fact that the surrounding properties are zoned Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S)
which axe consistent with the project zoning and proposed use,
8. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and
connects with Winchester Road.
9. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built
or natural environment as determined in the initial study performed for this project due to the
fact that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigation for the project.
R:%S~STAFFRPT%54PA92.PC 2/17/93 klb 9
10. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they
are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project as represented on the site plan.
G. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Conditional Use Permit proposed is
compatible with the health, safety and weftare of the community.
Seaion 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was performed for this project
which determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City
because impacts wffi be mitigated by adherence to the attached Conditions of Approval which
have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
Seaion 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Case No. PA92-0054, Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a tire store
located at 40525 Winchester Road in the COSTCO Shopping Center; Parcel Number 11 of
Parcel Map No. 26852; Assessor Parcel Number 910-110-071.
A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto.
Seaion 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of February, 1993.
LINDA L. FAHEY
CHAIRMAN
I FIYJIERy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 22nd day of
February, 1993 by the foliowing vote of the Commission:
AYF, S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONYA~:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNtin J-
SECRETLY
R:\SXSTAFFRPT~54PA92.pC 2/17/93 klb 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~S\STAFFRPT~S4PA92.PC 2/17193 klb 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Case No. PA92-0054, Conditional Use Permit
Project Description: Construction of a Big O Tire Store.
Assessor's ParceI No.: 910-110-071
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer
shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to
the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars
(~1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars
($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee
to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources
Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-
eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning
Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c),
The use hereby permitted by this Conditional Use Permit is for the operation of a tire
store.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless'the City of Temecula, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Case No. PA92-0054, Conditional Use Permit. The City of Temecula
'will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the
City of Temecula and will 'cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly
notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully
in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify,
or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of 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. This approval shall expire on February 22, 1995.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on
Case No. PA92-0054, Conditional Use Permit marked Exhibit "D", or as amended by
these conditions.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.pC 2/17/93 klb 12
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations outlined in the Riverside County
Health Department's transmittal dated January 12, 1993, a copy of which is attached,
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated January 4, 1993
a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
California Water District transmittal dated February 3, 1993 a copy of which is
attached,
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control District transmittal dated February 11, 1993 a copy of which is
attached.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking,
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of
the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348,
Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic
sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a
viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall
not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.
A minimum of twenty-four (24) parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with
Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. These parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Site Plan Exhibit D.
A minimum of one handicapped parking space shall be provided as shown on Exhibit
D. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a
permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text
or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be
smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the
parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the
parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the
parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a
conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
R;\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.PC 2/17/93 klb 13
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23,
24.
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
An Administrative Plot Plan application for a signage shall be submitted and approved
by the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit G.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance
with that shown on Exhibit K (Materials Board).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be architecturally shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and
a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
Four (4) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by
the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. These racks shall
be shown on the landscape plans.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be
determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of
planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate
maintenance of the planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Building
and Safety.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits a maintenance bond shall be secured with the
Planning Director to insure the maintenance of all landscaping for a period of one year
including labor and materials.
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to screen various components of the project if deemed necessary by the
Planning Director.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92,PC 2/17/93 klb 14
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
25.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative
Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code.
26.
Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
27.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
28. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
29.
Provide occupancy approval for all existing buildings (i.e. finaled building permit,
Certificate of Occupancy).
30. All existing buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped
accessibility regulations.
31. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior
lighting, fire alarm systems.
32. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C~
33. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
34. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood. that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
35. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and
improvements) construction shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works
prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-
of-way.
R;\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.PC 2/17/93 kJb 15
36.
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.
37.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
38.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, 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 has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt.
39.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall receive written clearance
from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
CalTrans
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
40.
A grading plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, City Standards, and as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval.
41.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
42.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and
shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and
liquefaction.
43.
The precise grading plans shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works.
44.
The erosion control plans shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works.
R:~S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.PC 2/17/93 klb 16
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department and the Department of Public Works for review,
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weed-free condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior
to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been
already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
The developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
A Flood Plain Development Permit and drainage study shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval. The drainage study shall include,
but not be limited to, the following criteria:
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities as directed by
the Department of Public Works.
Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard
map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
C. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development l O0-year floodplain and
floodway shall be shown on the precise grading plan.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the
release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of
the drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for
review prior to issuance of any permit. The location of the recorded easement shall
be delineated on the precise grading plan.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A and is
subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this
project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula and with the rules
and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include
obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA.
The developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an ECS
sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~54pA92.pC 2/17/93 Idb 17
53. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
recorded by separate instrument as directed by the Department of Public Works.
54. All surface drainage west of the proposed driveway shall be conveyed towards an
outlet structure into the existing catch basin.
55. Along westerly property line, existing A.C. berm shall be removed and replaced with
concrete curb and gutter.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
56. All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
57. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or
precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works:
A. Flow line 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 Standard Nos. 207/207A and
401 (curb and sidewalk).
C. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
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.
58. The developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance
with applicable City Standards and subiect to approval by the Department of Public
Works.
A. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
B. Storm drain facilities
C. Landscaping (streets and parks).
D. Sewer and domestic water systems.
E. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
F. Erosion control and slope protection.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.PC 2/17/93 klb 18
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
59.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall receive written clearance
from the following agencies:
Riverside County Fire Department
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
60.
All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been submitted and/or
accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
61. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works
62.
All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
63.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre/unit as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
64.
The developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent
property.
65.
Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City's C.A.T.V. Franchises of
the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V. Standards prior to
issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
66.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall
be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final
public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on
which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the
developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement,
developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the bond shall be ~2.00 per square foot, not to exceed ~10,000. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions
of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district,
or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation qr traffic impact fee for this
project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness
of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~S4PA92.pC 2/17/93 klb 19
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
67.
Prior to the issuance of certification of occupancy, the developer shall receive written
clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
68.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive
approaches, parkway trees, street lights on all interior public streets, signing, striping,
traffic signal interconnect, and traffic signals.
69.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions,
such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event the City is required
to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the
developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such
easement at the developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5,
which shall be at no cost to the City.
R:~S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.PC 2/17/93 Idb 20
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL STUDY
R:\S\STAFFR~T%54PA92.PC 2/17/93 klb 21
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Initial Environmental Study
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
I. Name of Project: Big O Tire Store
2. Case Numbers: PA92-0054, Conditional Use Permit
3. Location of Project: 40525 Winchaster Road
Temecula, CA 92590
4. Description of Project: A 3,400 square foot tire store on .42 acres in the Scenic Highway
Commercial (C-P-S) zone. The project site is parcel 10 of Tentative
Parcel Map No. 26852. '
5, ' Date of Environmental
Assessment:
6. Name of Proponent:
7. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
January 25, 1993
E. Bryan Knowles
127 W. Lexington Avenue
E1 Cajon, CA 92020
619/442-3471
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section IL0
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering
of the soil?
~ Maybe ~
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
X
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion?
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake?
1 R:\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.1ES 1/26/93 tjs
Yes Maybe N._.Qo
h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, Found
failure, or similar hazards? X
i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? __ __ __X
2.Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? __ _ X
b. The creation of objectionable odors? __ _ X
c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture or any
change in climate, whether locally or regionally? __ __ X
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters? __ __ __X
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
mount of surface runoff?. X
c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? __ __ __X
d. Change in the mount of surface water in any water body? __ __ __X
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but not limited to, temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity? __ __ X
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? __ __ X
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations? X
h. Reduction in the mount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies? ..... X
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding? X
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic plants)? __ __ __X
R:%S\STAFFRPT%54PA92jES 1/26193 tjs
Yes Maybe
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop?
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of
animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish,
amphibians, shellfish, benthie organisms, and/or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of animals?
c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area?
d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of the present land use of an area?
b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described
in a community or general plan?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
No
X
X
X
X
X
X
3 R:\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.IE$ 1/26/93 tie
Yes Maybe N_.q
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous
substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticides, chemicals,
oil or radiation)? __ _
b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic
materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticicles, chemicals,
or radiation)? __ __
c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan? __ __
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area? __ __
12. Homing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing? __ __
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement.'?.
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including
public transportation? __ __
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? __ __
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? __ _
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? X _
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4 R:\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.1ES t/26/93 tjs
Yes Maybe N_.Q
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
X
f. Other governmental services: __ __ X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
X
Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy?
X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alterations to any of the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
b. Communications systems? __ __ X
c. Water systems? __ __ X
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks?
X
e. Storm water drainage systems? __ __ X
f. Solid waste disposal systems? __ __ X
Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of
utility delivery system improvements for any of the above?
X
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health heard or potential health heard?
X
The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including
the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and
schools) to toxic pollutant emissions?
X
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public?
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area?
19.
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities?
5 R:XSXSTAFFRPT~54PA92.1ES 1126/93 tjs
20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
c. Any potential to cause a physic, al change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area7
Maybe
N__o
X
X
X
X
6 R:\S\$TAFFRPT~54PA92.IES 1/26/93 tjs
Eft. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
No. Although the proposed project will result in minimal grading there will not be changes in the
base geologic substructures.
l.b.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil displacement,
compaction and over-covering. A grading plan will be certified by the Engineering Department
which will mitigate all impacts.
I.C.
No. The proposed site is currently graded and further development of the proposed project will
not require substantial grading and as a result will not alter the existing topography.
I .d. No. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site.
Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction phase and remain
high until disturbed areas are replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered high and significant
but will be mitigated through minimal grading and 'use of watering trucks and hydro-seeding
disturbed areas after grading.
l.f.
No. There is no body of water near the project site which could be affected by the proposed
project.
1 .g. No. There will be no modification of water course or body of water.
l.h.
Yes. The project site is located within a liquefaction area. A Geetechnical Report was prepared
for the underlying parcel map. The project is conditioned to comply with the recommendations set
forth in that report. The conditions placed upon this project will reduce this impact below a level
of significance.
1.i.
The project is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone.
No. While this project will have a cumulative impact on the overall air quality of the south coast
air basin, this impact is not considered significant. This impact is not considered significant since
the air emissions from this project are not expected to exceed the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) threshold of significance.
2.b,c. No. The proposed project should not create any objectionable odors or alter the area's climate.
Water
No. The proposed project will not affect any body of water.
3.b.
Yes. The proposed project will increase the mount of impermeable surfaces on the site which will
reduce the mount of water absorption. Drainage patterns will continue to flow to the streets and
channels. This impact is not considered to be of significance.
7 R:\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.1ES 1128193 tjs
3.f,g. No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or rate of flow of Found waters.
The proposed project will not interfere with the present ground water conditions.
3.h. No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply or system.
3.i.
Maybe. The proposed project is within the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan
and watershed area. To mitigate any potential impact, a flood mitigation charge shall be paid.
Plant Life
4.a,b,c.
No. The site has been previously graded. There will be no removal of any unique, rare or
endangered species. New species of plants will be introduced to the site as part of the landscape
requirements for the project. The addition of the new species is not considered a negative impact.
4.d. No. The site is not currently used for agricultural purposes.
Animal Life
5.a,b,c
d,e.
No. The proposed project is in an area that has been experiencing urbnnization for a number of
years. The site is currently graded and it is highly unlikely that an endangered specie habitats the
site. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat
Conservation fees have been paid as part of the underlying parcel map to mitigate the effect of
cumulative impacts.
Noise
6.a.
Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during construction. Long-ten noise impacts
will occur due to increased traffic volumes. This impact is not considered to be significant since
the surrounding land uses are not noise sensitive.
6.b. No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project.
6.c. No. Severe vibrations will not be generated by the proposed project.
Light and Glare
Yes. The proposed project is located within the Mt. Paiomar Observatory Street Lighting Policy
Area which recommends the use of low pressure sodium vapor (LPSV) lights to help avoid
interference known as "Skyglow". The use of LPSV lights will reduce the impact of light and glare
produced by the proposed project to below a level of insignificance.
Land Use
8.a.
Yes. This site is currently vacant, however, the Draft Preferred Land Use Plan designates the
subject site for Community Commercial. The Southwest Area Plan designates the subject site for
General Commercial. The surrounding land uses are also General Commercial. The intensification
of the proposed use is not anticipated to be signific, ant due to the fact that the proposed project is
consistent with the current land use designation.
8 R:XS\STAFFRPT~54PA92.1ES 1/26193 tjs
8.b.
No. The Draft Preferred Land Use Plan designates the subject site for Community Commercial.
The Southwest Area Plan designates the subject site for General Commercial. The surrounding
land uses are also General Commercial.
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of any natural or non-renewable
natural resource.
Risk of Upset
10.a,b. No. Prior to the on-site storage, transport, or disposal of any hazardous substances clearance shall
be obtained from the Riverside County Health Department.
10.c.
No. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any streets which would interfere with
emergency vehicles. If street or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City and
Sheriff Department.
Population
11.
No. The proposed commercial building will generate some jobs. The project will have a
cumulative impact on the regions population but is not considered to be significant.
Ho~ing
12.
No. The proposed commercial building will not generate a significant number of jobs to create a
demand for additional housing.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a,c,d.
No. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to and from the site. However, it is not
anticipated that this increase will be significant. The traffic that is generated by the project may
add an incremental impact to the 1-15 Interchanges which are currently operating at capacity during
peak hours. This potential impact will be mitigated by a transportation improvement mitigation fee.
There will not be a significant impact upon existing transportation systems due to the small size of
the project.
13.b.
Yes. The proposed project will require parking to support the use. The project has provided the
required parking spaces.
13.e. No. The proposed project will not affect waterborne, rail or air traffic.
13.f.
Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or
pedestrians, however future street and signal improvements will reduce the impact to a level of non-
significance.
R:\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.1ES 1126193 tie
Public Services
14.a,b,e. No. The proposeel automotive use will require public services in the areas of police, fire,
maintenance of roads, and public facilities. This impact is not considered significant although it
will have slight incremental impact on public facilities.
14.c,d,f. No. The project will not fiave a substantial effect on these public services.
Energy
15.a,b. No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or increase in demand of fuel or
energy.
Utilities
16 . a-g. No. The proposed project requires the use of utilkies but will not require substantial alteration to
the exiting systems.
Human Health
17.a-b.
Yes. The project has the potential to store hazardous materials on the project site. Prior to the
storage of any hazardous materials at the site, a plan for their use and disposal shall be submitted
to the City, County Health and County Fire Departments which will mitigate this impact to below
a level of insignificance.
Aesthetics
18.a,b,c. No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open to the public. The elevations of
the proposed project are consistent in architectoral materials to the surrounding buildings.
Recreation
19. No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
Cultural Resources
20.a-d.
No. The subject site has previously been graded and it is unlikely that the project will result in the
destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site. If a site is discovered, an archaeologist
or paleontologist should be called on site to supervise the digging and determine if the site is
significant. The proposed project will not impact any building of historic significance, affect
unique ethnic cultural values or restrict sacred uses.
l0 R:\S\STAFFRPT%54PA92.1ES 1126/93
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project have the potential to either: degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish,
wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal
species, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Yes Maybe N_._Q
X
Does the project have the potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental
goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
X
Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate resources may be
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.)
X
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUSt' IMPACT FINDINGS
Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources?
Wildlife is deftned as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued
viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code).
Yes N._Qo
1 ] R:~S\$TAFFRPT~54PA92.1ES 1126193 tjs
ENVIRON1VIENTAL Dib"rs:R,,MINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fred that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case
because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and
in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will
mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on th~
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Prepared by:
Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
Name and Title
January 25. 1993
Date
19 R:\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.IES 1/26/93
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\S%STAFFRPT%54PA92,pC 2/16/93 klb 22
CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECU
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: A
P.C. DATE:
Conditional Use Permit No. PA92-0054
February 22, 1993
VICINITY MAP
R;\S\STAFFRPT~54PAe2.PC 2/16193 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
.Lfi
SITE
CASE NO,:
. EXHIBIT: B
' P,C. DATE:
Conditional Use Permit No, PA92-0054
February 22, 1993
SWAP MAP
R:\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.PC 2/16/93 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
II
II ,
/
A-2-20
C-P-S '/ 'j
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. PA92-0054
_' EXHIBIT: C
' P.C. DATE: February 22, 1993
ZONING MAP
R:\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.PC 2116193 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. PA92-0054
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE: February 22, 1993
SITE PLAN
R:\S%STAFFRFT~S4pA92.PC 2/16193 Idb
CITY OF TEMECULA
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
CASE NO.:
_ EXHIBIT: E
'P.C. DATE:
Conditional Use Permit No. PA92~0054
LANDSCAPE PLAN
February 22, 1993
R:~S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.PC 2/16/93 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: F
P.C. DATE:
Conditional Use Permit No. PA92-0054
February 22, 1993
COSTCO SITE PLAN
R:\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92,PC 2/16/93 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
NORTH EI~EVATIO~iJ
8OUTH ~LE'f'/I, TIpN ~
1
,~VEeT.~LEV^:rIO~
CASE NO.: Conditional Use Permit No. PA92-0054
EXHIBIT: G
'P.C. DATE: February 22, 1993
ELEVATIONS
R:\S\STAFFRPT~54PA92.PC 2116/93 klb
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 22, 1993
Case No.: Draft Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Prepared By: Purkiss Rose - RSI
Shawn Nelson
Gary L. King
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission review the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan and forward a recommendation of approval to the
City Council to adopt the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as an
element of the General Plan.
INTRODUCTION
On February 28, 1991 the City Council approved a contract with Purkiss Rose - RSI to assist
the City in preparing its first Parks and Recreation Master Plan that is comprehensive, and
consistent with the General Plan.
According to State Law, the Master Plan is an element of the General Plan and is the primary
document required of a City as a basis for providing guidance for organized and structured
development of parks, trails, open space, facilities and programs.
The City's approach to preparing the Master Plan involved substantial guidance by the Parks
and Recreation Commission and City Council, a Community Participation Program, and
technical review and guidance by City staff and Subcommittees. Members of the Parks and
Recreation Commission and City Council, through joint workshops, essentially functioned as
a master plan advisory committee throughout the preparation process. This allowed for very
meaningful direction on the Goals and Policies of the Plan.
The Citizen Participation Program was designed to provide a high level of communication
between City officials, citizens, landowners, and the consultant team. The Program offered
opportunities for the public to attend two community workshops at key milestones during the
formulation of the Plan.
An opinion survey of 400 residents was conducted to obtain a consensus as to particular
recreational needs within our community. In addition, staff met individualJy with concerned
citizens and landowners throughout the process. Master Plan Subcommittees met on two
occasions during the process to provide a more detailed review of the Plan.
Public Hearings for the General Plan and its elements were conducted at two Planning
Commission meetings, October 19, 1992 and November 2, 1992. A Parks and Recreation
Commission Meeting for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Element was conducted on
November 9, 1992 and was approved by the Commission.
A copy of the Master Plan has been distributed to all members of the Planning Commission
for review. An executive summary of the plan has been included as part of the staff report.
A presentation will made by Purkiss Rose RSI to summarize the intent and contents of the
master plan document on February 22, 1993
Attachments
1. Executive Summary - Blue Page 3
2
ATTACHMENT N0. 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This surama~y of the City of Teraecula Parks and Recreation Master Plan provides a brief
and concise profile of the contents and recommendations contained withir~ The sections
following this overview describe details of the research and analyses from where the resulting
recommendations were generated. These sections outline points concerning existing park and
recreation facilities and programs, po, v;da.don and demographics, citizen participation,
current demand for recreation services and analysis of trend~, needs a~sessment, policies and
goals, funding strategies, and recommendations for facilities improvement&
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Temecula is to ma/ntain a safe, secure, clean, healthy and
orderly comrmmity, to balance the utilization of open space, parks, trail facilities, quality
jobs, public transportation, diverse housing and adequate infrastructure and to enhance
and revitalize historic areas.
The City will encourage programs for all age groups, utilize its human resources,
preserve its natural resources while stimulating technology, promoting commerce and
utilizing sound fiscal policy.
It is the City Council's resolve that this mission will install a sense of pride and
accomplishment in its citizens and that the City will be known.as a progressive,
innovative, balanced and environmentally sensitive community.
PURPOSE
The City of Temecula Parks and Recreation Master Plan was formulated to provide
guidance to the City for the organized and structured development of the City's parks,
recreation, trails, open space facilities and program~. This Master Plan recommends
regular reviews at three-year intervals and is based on projections to the year 2012.
GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR PARKS, RECREATION AND LEISURE SERVICES
The following enumerates the general politics of the Comm~ality Services Department as
it pertaln~ to its park and recreation objectives. A more detailed explanation of each
policy can be found in Section Five of this Master Plan.
These 11 major guidelines are geared to provide the framework for the City's parks and
recreation program. These are:
i
A. Conserve open space for its natural, cultural and recreational values.
B. Provide financial suppor~ for parks and recreation services.
C. Provide close-to-home recreation opportunities.
D. Encourage joint-use of existing physical resources.
E. Ensure that recreation facilities are well-managed and well-maintained, and that
quality recreation program~ are available by employing an adequate number of
well-tralned staff.
F. Provide a wide variety of recreation facilities and programs to create a positive
leisure environment.
G. Provide adequate and responsive recreation services through sound planning.
H. Mal~e environmental education and management an integral part of park and
recreation policies and program~.
I. Strengthen the role of cultural arts in recreation.
J. Encourage citizen interaction and socialization.
K. Foster a climate of volunteerism,
SPECIFIC PARKS, RECRF~TION AND LEISURE SERVICES POLICIES
The following is a list of specific policies for the Commmaity Services Department that
corresponds to the framework established by the general guidelines named above. These
specific goals were developed to assist the Department carry out its mission as the
steward of the cornm~mity's parks, open space and natural resources. A more detailed
explanation of each goal can be found in Section Five,
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Park lands and acquisition policy.
Park unit classification policy.
Park planning, design and development policy.
Pro~ams a~.d services policy.
Operations a.ud maintenance policy.
ii
F. Economic performace and finance policy.
G. Legislative and ordinance policy.
COMMUNITY GOALS AND OBJE(,-flVES OF MASTER PLAN
The Master Plan has been tailored to meet the goals of the City of Temecula as
expressed through the research methods used to gather information. Each community
goal has a corresponding Master Plan objective devised to help meet that specific goal.
Based on the information from community workshops and telephone surveys, the
following community goals have been identified with corresponding Master Plan
objectives geared to meet those goals:
Community Goal #1:
Provide a comprehensive and balanced neighborhood'and community park system
throughout Temecula.
Master Plan Objectives:
1. Define the limitations of neighborhood and community parks.
- 2. Divide City into two geographic areas and provide for an equal distribution
of facilities in each area.
3. Mainthin a ratio of five developed acres per 1,000 population.
4. Utilize school facilities by means of joint-use agreements.
5. Develop a Capital Improvement Plan that identifies and prioritizes an
orderly process for future development.
Condition residential development for park land dedication requirements.
Community Goal #2:
Provide a City-wide multi-trails system that includes bicycle, jogging and equestrian
trails.
Master Plan Objectives:
1. Develop joint-use agreements with private ownership and various public
entities, i.e., utilities and flood control agencies in order to establish right-
of-access.
2. Develop trail development standards.
3. Provide for circulation opportunities for transportational and recreational
uses.
Community Goal # 3:
Provide a balanced recreation program that meets the needs of all age groups in the
community.
Master Plan Objectives:
· . 1. Periodic update of recreation needs assessment.
2. Provide park and recreation facilities to address recreation needs.
3. Provide staff to organize recreation program involving both City personnel
and commulfity volunteers.
COMMUNITY PROFILE: POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
Temecula is situated in the southwestern portion of Riverside County. The City was
incorporated December 1, 1989 and has an estimated January 1992 population of 32,000.
The City projects growth to almost 90,000 population in 20 years as families travel
further to seek affordable housing in a rural atmosphere.
The present population is spread throughout the city with 17,600 north of Rancho
California Road and 14,400 to the south. By the year 2012, it is projected that 38,700
residents will be living north of Rancho California Road and 51,000 to the south. The
Master Plan displays both the present City llrnlt~s and the projected sphere of influence
for planning purposes. Refer to Map 1-1.
The school district has seen a steady rise in enrollment and is in an on-going mode for
development of new schools to meet rising demand. Children of school ages 5 to 17
represent 21.7 percent of the overall population. Senior citizens within Temecula Val/ey
are active and persons ages 55 years and over represent 12.4 percent of the population.
Statistics indicate a strong growth in the senior level age group over the next few
decades.
The City of Temecula is earnestly promoting commerce and industry to attract new
business into the area and increase the local job market. The majority of the work force
presently commute to Los Angeles or Orange County to their place of work.
The City has several tourist attractions including Old Town Temecula and the Wine
Country. The influx of tourists is encouraged as it brings income to the commnnlty.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Citizen involvement was a fundamemal ingredient of the research process. Two methods
were chosen to incorporate feedback and reaction. A telephone survey was conducted
and involved more than 400 residents. Two Citizen Community Workshops were also
held and were artended by both special interest groups and dtizens-at-large who
volunteered to participate. Participants came from all parts of the City and represented
all age groups.
The telephone survey accomplished several key elements in the planning process.
Paramount among these is that the survey was a method by which to identify and
determine cross sections among the participants as to theft opinions regarding park use,
recreation and program demand. The survey also provides planners with a.n overview of
how the COmm~lnity perceives the park system. Workshop topics included identification
of the issues, demand analysis, sites and facilities, funding strategies, and policy review.
SUPPLY INVENTORY
The City of Temecula currently owns 188.95 acres of parkland, approximately 40 acres of
which is developed. Sports Park is currently planning its next improvement with the
addition of a community recreation center, pool complex and amphitheater. Pala Road
Park is currently being designed as a community park with the addition of many new
facilities.
The City is in the process of developing a bike route on its City streets. There are also
many recreational and equestrian trails throughout the community. This stage of the
City's development presents tremendous opportunities to establish comprehensive
guidelines for bicycle routes, recreational and equestrian trails.
V
The City will continue to work with the school district regarding the utilization of school
grounds and fields for recreational purposes.
The existing park inventory is displayed in Exhibit 2-3. The park and school sites and
potential parks and school sites are keyed by ~nmber into Maps 2-1 and 2-2.
As new development is realized and park land obligation is fulfilled, many new acres and
facilities will be added to the inventory.
The following represents current standards for facilities existing in the City.
CITY OF TEMECULA
CURRENT STANDARDS FOR FACILITIES
Facility Type Facility/Population Ratios
Amphitheater ............................................................. 1/City-wide
Softball
Adult Softball .............................................................. 1/5,500
Youth Soilball ............................................................. 1/7,300
Practice/Informal ........................................................... 1/5,400
Baseball
Little League .............................................................. 1/4,300
Adult .................................................................... 1/8,000
Practice Informal Play ........................................................ 1/6,000
Community Centers .......................................................... 1/25,000
Senior Centers .............................................................. 1/25,000
Recreation Centers .......... ~ ................................................. 1/8,000
Convention Center ......................................................... 1/City-wide
Gymnasium ................................................................ 1/15,000
Handball/Racquetball .......................................................... 1/6,500
Library .................................................................... 1/25,000
Football
Orga,~lTed Games .......................................................... 1/11,600
Soccer
OrganiTed Games ........................................................... 1/2,600
Basketball/Multipurpose ........................................................ 1/8,300
Tot Lots/Play Areas ........................................................... 1/1,350
Swimming Pools ............................................................. 1/16,300
Tennis Courts ...... - .......................................................... 1/22,00
Volleyball Cotarts ............................... : ............................. 1/8,000
Skateboard Area .......................................................... 1/City-wide
CURRENT FACILITY DEMAND
Based on the needs analysis as described in Section Four, the following summary displays
the current need for facilities and acreage requirements.
Facility 1992 Existing Surplus/ School Total Total Existing Total
Needs City Deficit (-) Facilities Facilities Surplus/ Area Area
Facilities Avail. Avail. Deficit (-) (Acres) Demanded
Softball Fields:
Org. Youth 4.4 2 -2.4 0 2 -2.4 4:00 8.73
Org. Adult 5,8 2 -3.8 0 2 -3.8 4.00 11.54
Pracficc/
Infomal Play 5.9 0 -5.9 4 4 -1.9 8.00 11.82
Baseball Fields:
Litfie League 7.5 6 -1.5 0 6 -1.5 7.7!0 8.94
Adult 4.0 0 -4.0 2 2 -2.0 7.70 1535
Practice/
Informal Play 5.3 0 -5.3 5 5 -03 8.50 9.04
Football
Org. Games 2.8 0 -2.8 1 1 -1.8 1..50 4.15
Soccer Fields
Org. Games 12.0 4 -8.0 1 5 -7.0 10.50 25.11
Soccer/Football Fields
Practice/
Informal 12.6 0 -12.6 6 6 -6.6 12.60 26.40
Tot LoB/
Playgrounds 23.8 6 -17.8 12 18 -5.8 2.70 3.57
Swimming Pools2.0 0 -2.0 1 1 -1.0 1.00 1.96
Tennis Courts 13.9 0 -13.9 10.5 10.5 -3.4 2.10 2.79
Basketball Courts
Org~niTed
Adult (Gym) 1.0 0 -1.0 0 0 -1.0 .05 .19
Organized
Youth (Gym) 1.2 0 -1.2 0 0 -1.2 .1.5 ..23
Practice/
Informal 3.9 0 -3.9 29 29 25.1 2.90 .39
3ogghag,
Paths (mi) 2.3 N/A -2.3 N/A 0 -2.3 .00 2.31
Bicycling
Paths (mi) 52.1 N/A -52.1 N/A 0 -51.1 .00 52.1.2
Facility 1992 Existing Surplus/ School Total Total Existing Total
Needs City Deficit (-) Facilities Facilities Surplus/ Area Area
Facilities Avail. Avail. Deficit (-) (Acres) Demanded
Wag
Paths (nil) 57.6 N/A -57.6 N/A 0 -57.6 .00 28.78
Trails (mi) 21.2 N/A -21.2 N/A 0 -21.2 .00 16.95
Volleyball
Courts 4.0 0 --4.0 ' 20 20 16.0 ZOO .40
Racquet/
Handball CourtsS.0 0 -5.0 8 8 3.0 .16 .10
Exercise
Courses 3.2 0 -3_2 0 0 -3.2 .00 3.23
Classrooms:
Adult 6.9 0 -6.9 I 1 -5.9 .2.5 1.72
Youth 6.0 0 -6.0 i 1 -5.0 .25 1.50
Total 2.8 0 -12.8 2 2 -10.8 .$0 3.21
Total Net Acres of Active Recreation Facilities CExcluding
Trails and Golf Facilities)
Ratio Of Total PaxBand to Active Recreation Facilities
76.46 B9.00
1.$7 1_57
Total Acres of Paxldand
119.90 217.97
The current standard of five acres per 1,000 population can be met by the City.
However, based on the demand analysis, current demand reflects a need for an
additional 1.8 acres to satisfy present and future COmmunity needs, bringing the total to
6.8 acres per 1,000 population. This additional acreage can be met by school facilities to
meet current requirements.
DEFINITION OF PARK TYPES
The table on the' following pages depicts the various types of parks and their uses. These
categories represent basic explanations of what each park type normally cont_ain~ at the
rninlml,un level.
Following the table defining the park types is a chart showing the quality, type and
number of facilities that should be available at each park category.
I
!
ix
Park Type
Neighborhood
BASE LEVEL PARK DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
Neighborhood Parks
Miniram tO
Maximum Size
3 to 10 acres
Mi.lmum Base Recreation Facilities
Tot Lot/Playground
Informal Opcn Space/
Play Area
Open Picaic Tablcs
Picnic Shcltcrs
Barbccuc~
Softball: l, nforznal
Basketball: Infomal
Volleyball
Walkways
Trash Receptacles
Support Facilities
(Selective per project)
Parking for 5 to 10 cars
Public Restrooms
BASE LEVEL PARK DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
Community Parks
Park Type
Minimum to Minimum Base Recreation ,
Maximum Size Facilities
Support Facilities
Commxlnity 15 to '40.
Tot Lot/Playground 1
Informal/Open Spacc
Play Area/ 1
Open Picnic Tables 12
Picnic Shelters 4
Babecues 16
Bascbalh Lkilc League 2
Softball 2
Basketball: Infomal 2
Soccer 2
Tennk Courts 2
Volleyball 2
logging/Exercise Course 1
Trash Receptacles
Recreation Building (2,500
to 4,000 square fcc0 1
Note: 50% courts and organiTed sports ~clds Lightc&
Parking for 50 to 100
cars (0.5 to 1 acre)
Public Restrooms 1/15 acrcs
Optional Facilities
Pcrforml-g Arts
Gymnasium
Swimming
Complex
BASE LEVEL PARK DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
Special Use Parks
ParkType
Minimum to Base Recreation Facilities
Maximum Size
Support Facilities
Special Use 50 to 100+
Tot Lot/Playground
Informal Open Space/
Play Area
Open Picnic Tables
Picnic Shelters
Barbecues
Softball: Informal
Basketball: Informal
Volleyball: Informal
Swil~m~n~ Complex
Softball: Org~niTed Youth
Softball: Org~,,17cd Adult
Baseball: Org~ni~,~,d
Youth/Adult
Baseball: Littic League
Football
Soccer: Orga,~iTed
TCnn~ Complex
Jog~ing/Excrdsc Course
Recreation Buil,ii,,g (4,000
to 6,000 square fcc0
Gymnasium
Auditorium
Parking for 100 to 250
cars (1.0 to :2.5 acres)
Public Restrooms
Note: 50% all informal sports fields lighted; 100% courts and organized sports fields lighted.
Optional Facilities
Additional Facilkics from
from parks listed above
PerformlnS Arts
Cultural Facilities
Toux'namcnts
EqUesLrlan
Archery Range
Fairs
Rodeos
Outdoor Amphitheater
City-Wide Maintenance
Yard
FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS
Several development priorities have been identified for implementation within the next five
years once funds have been approve& These improvements should correspond to the Master
Plan's recommendations regarding park and facilities standards for mi'n~rallB1 size and facilities
available and the City's Capital Improvement Plan.
A. Continued improvements to Sports Park (Cornrmlnity Recreation Center project).
B. Develop Pala Park and Master Plan site as future cornrn~lnity park.
C. Acquire property in the Margarita Road and Moraga Road area and develop Master
Plan of site as future community park.
D. Master Plan bicycle and recreation trails, obtain rights of access and program phased
development.
E. Develop community park (Dendy property) in northern part of the City (northwest sports
complex).
Develop Master Plan for Riverton Lane Park to meet neighborhood park standards.
Complete expansion of Calle Aragon Park.
Develop Master Plan for Loma ljnda Park as a neighborhood park.
Develop a Senior Center.
Develop "L" shaped properly adjacent to Sam Hicks Monument Park.
Develop parking and landscaping improvements to Sports Park.
Develop a skateboard facility within an existing City park.
G.
H.
I.
K.
L.
M.
COSTS AND PRIORITIES
The following presents a summary of park needs and costs of acquiring these according to their
priority.
SUMMARY OF PARK DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND COSTS BY
PRIORITY
Current Short-Term Mid-Term Long-Term
1992 1992-1~97 19~/-2002 2002-2012
Total
Park Acres
Required by
City
160.0 80.5 118.5 89.5
4483
Existing
Developed
Acres 40.0
Additional
Acres Needed 120.0 80.5 118.5 89.5
Additional Acres
to be Provided
by:.
City · 120.0 19.75 28.75 0
Developers 0 60.75 89.75 89.5
240.0
City Costs for:
Acquisition $0 $1,777,500
Development $16,200,000 $3,199,500
$3,105,000 $0
$5,589,000 $0
S 4,882,500
$'24,988.500
Total City
Costs ' $16,200,000 $4,977,000 $8,694,000
Total Additional
Annual Operations
and Malntenanc~
Costs* $1,2.00,000 $ 966,000
* Assume at $10,000~acre in 1992 dollars.
$1,659,000
Note: All cost figures are adjusted for inflation by period.
$0
$1,521.500
$29,871,000
FUNDING STRATEGY
Although projected increases in City revenues from property assessments axe anticipated to be
adequate to operate and maintain the level of park land defined in the needs study over the
next twenty years, inadequate funds will be available for acquisition and development of the
appropriate facilities. Part of this acquisition gap will be accommodated by park dedications
within specific plan axeas. Some can be met with Qujmby fees. Additional sources of revenue
to accommodate this requirement include: increased bonding capacity supported by operating
revenues in excess of projected operating costs, increases in property assessment rates to
support bond issues, more aggressive dedication requirements, and development impact fees.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The following table represents the various projects the City has planned for the'next 20 years.
Each project listed on this plan has been assigned a priority in order to accommodate available
funding. The following guidelines were used in determining which priority to assign each
project:
Priority 1:
The project is considered urgent and must be completed immediately.
Failure to do so may have considerable financial or social impact on the
community.
Priority 2:
The project is considered fairly important and necessary. The project
would affect safety, law enforcement, health, weftaxe, economic base,
and/or quality of life.
Priority 3:
The project would enhance the quality of life and would therefore benefit
the comm~mlty. The mediate goals would be providing cultural,
recreational and/or aesthetic benefits.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Description Funding Acquisition Improvement
Source Cost Cost
Short Term (1993-1997)
Sports Park Phase I
Amphitheater,
Pool
Community
Recreation
Building B
Pala Park (28.6 acres)
Community Park A, B, D
Senior Center
Riverton Lane B, G
(5.0 acres)
Northwest Sports
Complex
40-acre site F, G
Moraga and Margarita
Parksite 20 acres A, D
Calle Aragon Park
Expansion
Loma Linda Park G
(2.9 acres)
Recreation Trail D
Improvements
(Trail Head Parks)
Sports Park Phase 1I
Parking
Tot lot
Group picnic
Landscape/irrigation C,D
Sam Hicks Monument Park
Restrooms
Develop "L' shaped
property
$ 454,455
$ 5,120,000
$ 2,200,000
$ 555,545
$ 550,000
$3,8~,000
$1,6~,000
$ 2,000,000
$ 1,185,000
$ 75,000
$ 435,000
$ 1,000,000
$ LIO0,O00
$ 250,000
Priority,
1
t
1
1
3
Description
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
(Continued)
Funding Acquisition Improvement
Source Cost Cost
Priorit~
City-wide Bike Paths
Skateboard Facility
Total:
$ 300,000
$ 100,000
Funding Sources:
$ 5,904,455 $14,870,545
A. Continually Ftmdi~g District 88-12
B. Community Services District Assessment Bond Proceeds
C. Commonlily Services District Assessments
D. Quimby Fees
E. Comra~mity Development Block Grant
F. Commtmity and Commercial Contributions
G. Developer Agxeement
Description
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
(Continued)
Mid-Term
Recreation Trail D
Improvements
(Trail Head Parks)
Recreation Center
Pala Park Site
Sports Park Improvements
Miscellaneous Neighborhood
Park Sites
P-1 north park
5-acre site
P-2 north park
5-acre site
P-3 southeast
5-acre site
P4 ~outhwest
5-acre site
P-5 northwest
5-acre site
P-6 northeast
5-acre site
Olympic Swim
Pool Complex
Funding Acquisition Improvement
Source Cost Cost
$150o,ooo
$1,,6oo,ooo
$ 375,000
$ 375,000
$ 375,000
$ 375,000
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
· $ 500,000
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
$ 500,000
Priority
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Total: $1,500,000 $ 8,100,000
Funding Sources:
A. Community Funding District 88-12
B. Cor-,',,,mity Services District Assessment Bond Proceeds
C. Co,~-,unity Services District Assessments
D. Qnlmby Fees
E. Comrmlnlty Development Block Grant
F. Community and Commercial Contributions
G. Developer Agreement
ACTION ITEMS
The adoption of this Master Plan is the most basic step toward improving parks, recreation and
leisure services in the City of Temecula. When properly implemented, the policies and
recommendations of this plan will bear definite implications for future directions.
The Community Services Department must initiate several processes immediately in order to
implement the recommendations of this Master Plan. To focus the discussion and provide a
guideline for definitive decision-making, the consultants have identified several activities as high
priority items which should take precedence over other actions. These are listed in logical
order based on ou~ analysis; however, it should be noted that these should act only as a
springboard for the City Staff and Board for their debate and determination.
Among the actions to take are the following:
1. Review, analyze and adopt policies.
Develop agreements with utilities companies and private landowners for long-term use of
easements, and develop joint use agreements with other public access.
3. Review, analyze and adopt funding strategy to meet shortfalls.
4. Fill location gaps in the provision of neighborhood service parks.
5. Aggressively move ahead with implementing the Capital Improvement Plan.
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
February 22, 1993
Director's Hearing Cases Update
On May 26, 1992, the Temecula City Council adopted a new Approval Authority Ordinance for
the City of Temecula. The new Ordinance was adopted in an effort to expedite the approval
process for applications being filed with the City. Since the new Approval Authority went into
effect, the following cases have been approved at the Planning Director's Hearing: six (6)
Public Use Permits, two (2) Conditional Use Permits, three (3) Plot Plans, seven (7) Extensions
of Time, and one (1) Parcel Map (reference Table 1 for a description of approved projects).
This new Approval Authority Ordinance has resulted in 19 projects that were approved at the
Planning Director's Hearing that would have previously been heard by the Planning
Commission. The new approval process has substantially reduced the number of Planning
Commission meetings necessary for project approval, as well as expedited the approval process
for a number of minor applications. Staff has received positive feedback from applicants, and
out of the 19 approvals, only i (an extension of time) generated any public response.
Attachment:
1. ' Table 1 - Description of Approved Projects - Blue Page 2
ATTACHIVIENT NO. 1
TABLE I - DESCRWTION OF APPROVED PROJECTS
TABLE 1 - DESCRIPTION OF APPROVED PROJECTS
The following represents the number of cases that have gone to a Director's Hearing since July
of 1992:
TOTAL #
OF CASES
8 Public
Use
Permits
· TYPE OF CASE
PUP 3, Revised No. 1
Ed Dufresne Ministries, Inc.
To expand existing church facilities within the
same building into an adjacent suite.
PUP 9
Fellowship Community Church
To locate a 3,600 square foot church into an
existing building in the Manufacturing Service
Commercial (M-SC) zone.
PUP 8, Amendment No. 1
Calvary Chapel of Rancho California
To locate a church facility in an existing building.
PUP No. 10
His Church Christian Center
To establish a 6,040 square foot church in an
existing building in the Manufacturing Service
Commercial (M-SC) zone.
PA 92-0040
Cornerstone Community Church
To locate a meeting facility with 2,781 square feet
of assembly area in an existing building.
PA 92-0020 Minor Public Use Permit
Don Robertson, Church of Christ
To locate an approximately 5,900 square foot
church in an existing building in the Manufacturing
Service Commercial (M-SC) ~one.
PA 92-0058 Minor Public Use Permit
Donald Coop
To locate an 1,800 square foot building in the
Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) zone.
APPROVAL
·DATE
August 6, 1992
October 15, 1992
October 15, 1992
November 19, 1992
January7, 1993
January21, 1993
February ll, 1993
THORNHG'~DH-$TATS .MEM 3
OFCASES TYPE OF CASE
2
Conditional
Use
Permits
2 Hot
Hans
8
Extensions
of
Time
PA 92-0059 Minor Public Use Permit
Donald Coop
To locate a 1,200 square foot church, related
office and classroom in an existing 2,600 square
foot building.
Conditional Use Permit No. 20, Amended No. 1
Motorhome Rental of Temecula
Proposal for R.V., Motorhome Sales.
Conditional Use Permit No. 21
Dr. John Long
To locate a veterinary clinic in an existing building
located in the Manufacturing Service Commercial
(M-SC) zone.
Plot Plan No. 247
Angelo Boussiacios/Yellow Basket Restaurant
To locate a 4,000 square foot drive-thru fast food
restaurant on a .94 acre site in the Scenic Highway
Commercial zone (C-P-S).
Plot Plan No. 229, Amendment No. 5
Super Mex
To locate a 3,878 square foot restaurant on 1.1
acres.
Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23143,
2nd Extension of Time
Taylor Woodrow Homes
2nd Extension of Time to subdivide a 459 acre site
into 1,026 single family residential lots, 97 open
space lots including 10.2 acres of public parks and
17.4 acres of private parks, and a 112 acre
remainder parcel.
Conditional Use Permit No. 3042, Extension of
Time/Substantial Conformance No. 29
Arco
To request a one year extension of Time to re-
locate structures on the property.
Hot Plan No. 11759, 1st Extension of Time
Matthew Cimmino
Construction of a previously approved Extension of
Time to allow for a 17,352 square foot industrial
building on a presenfiy vacant lot, located in the
Manufacturing Service Commercial 6VI-SC) zone.
APPROVAL
DATE
February 11, 1993
August 13, 1992
September 3, 1992
October 8, 1992
December 3, 1992
July 16, 1992
August 20, 1992
November 19, 1992
THORIqHGXDH4TATS.MEM 4
TOTAL #
OF CASES ~: TYPE OF CASE
1
Tentative
Parcel
Map
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23102, 3rd
Extension of Time
Marlborough Development Corporation
Third One Year Extension of Time
PA 92-0033, Tentative Parcel Map No. 26586
Felix Properties
Request for an Extension of Time to subdivide an
existing fiuilding in the Manufacturing Service
Commercial zone into 2 separate parcels for
condominium ownership purposes.
Tentative Tract Map No. 23513, First Extension of
Time
A.J. Terich Engineering
To subdivide 14.37 acres into 11 single family
lots.
Tentative Tract Map No. 23990, First Extension of
Time
Henning & Kirsten Alstrup
To subdivide 6.32 acres into 30 residential lot and
one open space lot in the R-2 zone.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.23125, 3rd
Extension of Time
Richard Frame
To subdivide 88.4 acres into 225 single family
residential lots and 13 open space lots in the
Residential Agriculture 21/2 acre minimum lot size
CR-A-21/2) zone.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26856, Amendment No.
2
Kathie Gray
Three (3) parcel residential subdivision of 10.13
gross acres. Parcel 1 is 2.6 gross acres, Parcel 2,
is 3.42 gross acres and Parcel 3 is 4.08 gross acres
APPROVAL
::DATE
January 7, 1993
January 7, 1993
January 21, 1693
January 28, 1993
February 11, 1993
January 7, 1993
ITEM #5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning/~'7/
DATE:
February 22, 1993
SUBJECT:
Five Year Approval Period for Plot Plans, Public Use Permits, and Conditional
Use Permits.
On January 12, 1993, the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors adopted an Ordinance
which allows for a five year approval period for plot plans (Initial approval for two years with
the possibility of three one-year extensions of time). Previously, the County's Ordinance
permitted a three year approval period. At the present time, the City of Murrieta is proposing
to also adopt an Ordinance which will allow for a five year approval period for Plot Plans,
Public Use Permits, and Conditional Use Permits (Initial approval for two years with the
possibility of three one-year extensions of time). Previously, the City of Murrieta's Ordinance
permitted a three year approval period.
The City of Temecula, in recognition of existing economic conditions, and in an effort to
establish a consistent process between both the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, and the
County of Riverside, is proposing to amend Ordinance 348, Sections 18.28, 18.29, and 18.30
to allow for a five year approval period for Plot Plans, Public Use Permits, and Conditional Use
Permits.
If the Commission is supportive of this five year approval for Plot Plans, Public Use Permits
and Conditional Use Permits, staff will prepare a staff report amending Ordinance 348,
Sections 18.28, 18.29, and 18.30 for the Commission's consideration.
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 22, 1993
Case No.: Determination of General Plan Consistency
Prepared By: David W. Hogan
RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT Resolution entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE
CITY OF TEMECULA DETERMINING THAT THE TRANSFER OF
17.97 ACRES OF LAND FROM THE NATIVE AMERICAN
OBSERVERS ASSOCIATION TO THE BUREAU OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY GENERAL PLAN"
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Native American Observer Training Association
PROPOSAL: The transfer of 17.97 acres from the Native American Observers
Training Association (NAOTA) to the U. S. Bureau of Indian
Affairs
LOCATION: SOuth of Temecula Creek and West of Interstate 15
PARCEL NUMBER: 922-220-021
BACKGROUND
In early 1992, Mr, Vince Ibanez representing the Native American Observer Training
Association (NAOTA} requested that land owned by the Association become tribal trust land
under the ownership and control of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). NAOTA made this
request to protect the site of the former Luise~o Indian village of Temeku from illegal artifact
hunters. The regulations of the BIA require that local governments which are potentially
affected by a trust land transfer be provided the opportunity to address (1) the impact of the
transfer on local government finances and (2) the compatibility of the proposed transfer with
the draft City General Plan.
The purpose of this item is to provide the Planning Commission the opportunity to determine
whether the proposed transfer is consistent with the City's Draft General Plan. The NAOTA
property is a 17.97 acre parcel located west of Interstate 15 and south of Temecula Creek.
The NAOTA property is shown on the Vicinity Map contained in Attachment No. 1.
R:~S~STAFFI~T~GENFtAN.PC 2116193
DISCUSSION
The draft City General Plan designation for the NAOTA property is Hillside Residential. The
Hillside Residential (RH) designation is intended to provide for very low density residential and
open space uses in areas with slopes greater than 25%, limited access and public services,
fire hazards, and other environmental concerns. The current land uses and General Plan
designations for the project site and adjacent properties are shown below.
Land Use
General Plan Desianation
PROJECT SITE: Undeveloped Hillside
Residential Hillside (RH)
NORTH:
EAST:
WEST:
SOUTH:
Temecula Creek
Interstate 15
Undeveloped Hillside
Undeveloped Hillside
Open Space/Recreation (OS)
Open Space/Recreation (OS)
Residential Hillside (RH)
Residential Hillside (RH)
The General Plan also contains several goals and policies which would support the proposed
transfer. Open Space and Conservation Goal 6 states that the Plan will preserve significant
historic and cultural resources, and Policy 6.4 states that the Plan will require sites containing
significant archeological or paleontological resources to either preserve identified sites or
provide for the professional retrieval of artifacts prior to development. The transfer of this site
to the Bureau of Indian Affairs would facilitate the preservation of the site.
Attachments:
Vicinity Map - Blue Page 3
Resolution - Blue Page 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
VICINITY MAP
R:%S%STAFFRPT~GENPLAN.PC 2/16/93 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE
CASE NO.: Determination of General Plan Consistency
EXHIRIT: 1
P.C. DATE: February 22, 1993
VICINITY MAP
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 93-
"A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DETERMINING THAT THE TRANSFER OF 17.97 ACRES
OF LAND FROM THE NATIVE AMERICAN OBSERVERS ASSOCIATION
TO THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
CITY GENERAL PLAN"
WHEREAS, The Native American Observer Training Association acquired the title to
a 17.97 acre parcel of land (Assessor's Parcel Number 922-220-021) from the California
Department of Transportation in 1985; and,
WHEREAS, The Native American Observer '~raining Association has requested that the
Bureau of Indian Affairs take title of said parcel as a tribal trust land that is not a part of the
Pechanga Indian Reservation; and,
WHEREAS, the regulations of the Bureau of Indian Affairs require that local
governments which could be potentially affected by such a transfer be provided an opportunity
to comment upon the fiscal and land use impacts of a land transfer; and,
WHEREAS, said 17.97 acre parcel of land is located within the City of Temecula; and,
WHEREAS, the General Plan for the City of Temecula has been reviewed by the
Planning Commission, and that the Commission has recommended to the City Council that the
Council approve and adopt the draft Genera/Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has evaluated said transfer request for its
consistency with the most recent draft of the City's General Plan; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DETERMINE THAT THE PROPOSED
TRANSFER OF THE ABOVEMENTIONED PROPERTY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE DRAFT CITY GENERAL PLAN.
R:%S~,STAFFRPT',GENPLAN.PC 2/16/93 5
PASSED, AlPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of February, 1993.
LINDA FAHEY
CHAIRMAN
I FrF~REBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 22nd day of
February, 1993 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
R:%S~,STAFFRPT~GENRAN.PC 2116/93 6
ITEM #7
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
February 22, 1993
Planning Commission Meetings
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE the consideration of having meetings the first Monday
of every month.
In the past we have had Planning Commission meetings on the I st and 3rd Monday of every
month. I recommend that we move to decrease the meetings to once a month. If needed,
we will utilize the 3rd Monday as necessary.