Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout100493 PC Agenda AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION October 4, 1993, 6:00 PM VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ford ROLL CALL: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Hoagland and Ford 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 not 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 2. Approval of minutes from the September 20, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. NON-PUBLIC HEARING Case No.: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Director's Hearing Report Planning Department City Wide Update for hearings in the month of September N/A Debbie Ubnoske Receive and File Case No.: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environment Action: Planner: Recommendation: N/A Taylor Woodrow Homes Limited Southeast corner of Pauba Road and Butterfield Stage Road, Crowne Hill. A request to receive feedback from the Planning Commission to replace two previously approved tentative maps with a 1,054 lot single family subdivision, one school site, two (2) public parks and a private eighteen hole golf course open to the public. N/A Salad Naaseh and Craig Ruiz Provide Direction R:\WIMBERVG~PLANCOMM%AGENDA$%10-4-93 9/29/93 vgw 1 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1 Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) 31350 Rancho Vista Road Expansion to the existing TVUSD facility in two (2) phases. Phase I consists of the construction of a 15,300 square foot warehouse, the conversion of an existing bus facility to 3,840 square feet of additional warehouse space, and the removal often (10) trailers and the drivers lounge. Phase 2 proposes a 15,300 warehouse expansion and a 13,824 square foot expansion to the District Office. Negative Declaration Ma~hew Fagan Approve Next meeting: November 1, 1993, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT R:%WIMBERVG%PLANCOMM%AGENDAS\10-4-93 9/28193 vow 2 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, September 20, 1993, at 6:00 P.M., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Ford. PRESENT: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present was Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Mary Jo SheIron, Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske and Recording Secretary Gall Zigler. PUBLIC COMMENT None 1. Approval Of Aaenda It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to approve the agenda. The motion was unanimously carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 2.1 AOOrOval of Minutes of the Julv 19, 1993 Plannino Commission MeetinQ It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to approve the minutes of the July 19, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was unanimously carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: PCMIN09/20/93 -1- Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford None None 9127/g3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2.2 SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 Aoproval of Minutes of the Auoust 2, 1993 Plannina Commission Meetina Chairman Ford asked for a correction on Page 5, Item No. 9, third paragraph as follows: "...Tract Map No. 25055, but this had not been included on the current submittal due to economic hardship". Page 8, third paragraph as follows: "Chairman Ford referred to the letter sent to the applicant on October 22, 1993 ...... ". It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to approve the minutes of the July 19, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. The motion was unanimously carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None NON-PUBLIC HEARING Planning Applicant No. 93-0134 - First Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108 Proposal for a one-year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108 located at the southeast corner of Ynez and Santiago Roads. Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to re- affirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108 and approve PA 93-0134, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27108, First Extension of Time subject to Conditions of Approval. The motion was unanimously carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: PCMINO9120/93 -2- Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford None None 9127193 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4. SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 PA93-0137 First Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 226 Proposed commercial retail complex of three structures totaling approximately 27, 150 square feet located at the southwest corner of Margarita Road and Pauba Road. Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. He advised that conditions relevant to NPDES (erosion control) have been added to the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Chiniaeff asked staff if there are conditions of approval to assure the drainage off this property will be handled properly. Principal Engineer Ray Casey advised the Conditions of Approval require that a drainage study be submitted and approved. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to re- Affirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 226 and approve PA 93-0137, Plot Plan No. 226, First Extension of Time subject to Conditions of Approval. The motion was unanimously carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PA93-0154 Second Extension of Time For Tentative Tract M8O No. 23513. Amendment No. I Proposed sub-division of 14.37 acres into 11 residential lots located on the north side of Santiago Road, approximately 1500 feet west of Avenida de San Pasqual. Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. He advised that conditions relevant to NPDES (erosion control) have been added to the Conditions of Approval. Planner Ruiz said Condition of Approval No. 2, refers to Ordinance 348 twice, and should be amended to read Ordinance 460. It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to re-affirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 23513, Amendment No. 1, Second Extension of Time and approve PA 93-0154, Tentative Tract Map No. 23513, Amendment No. 1, Second Extension of Time subject to Conditions of Approval. PCMINOg/20193 -3- 9/27193 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The motion was unanimously carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford None None 6. PA93-0165 Second Extension of Time for Tentative Tract MaD No. 23990, Amendment No. 4 Proposed subdivision of 6.32 acres into 30 residential lots located south of Via La Vida, approximately 300 feet east of Calle Palmas. Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. He advised that conditions relevant to NPDES (erosion control) have been added to the Conditions of Approval. Planner Ruiz said Condition of Approval No. 2, refers to Ordinance 348 twice, and recommended amending the condition to refer to Ordinance 460. Commissioner Chiniaeff stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to re- affirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract Map No. 23990, Amendment No. 4, and approve PA 93-0165, Tentative Tract Map No. 23990, Amendment No. 4, Second Extension of Time subject to Conditions of Approval. The motion was unanimously carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: I COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC 7. HEARING ITEMS PA93-0132 Proposed addition of a 107,300 square foot warehouse building to increase the warehouse area of an existing building on a 9.55 acre warehouse parcel in the Manufacturing Service Commercial Zone (M-SC) Zone located at 26040 Ynez Road. PCMIN09/20193 -4- 9127193 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:20 P.M. Howard Parsell, representing the applicant as the project architect, concurred with the Conditions of Approval. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to close the public hearing at 7:20 P.M. and Adoot Resolution No. 93-(next) approving PA93-0132 revised Plot Plan. The motion was unanimously carried as follows: SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Plannine Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No, 1 Proposed expansion of the existing TVUSD facility in two (2) phases. Phase 1 consists of the construction of a 15,300 square foot warehouse, the conversion of an existing bus facility to 3,840 square feet of additional warehouse space, the removal of ten (10) trailers and the drivers lounge. Phase 2 proposes a 15,300 warehouse expansion and a 13,824 Square foot expansion to the District Office located at 31350 Rancho Vista Road. Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan advised the Commission that the applicant requests this matter be continued to the next meeting due to an incorrect Planning Commission meeting date referenced in a letter the school district mailed to the surrounding property owners. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:25 P.M. Lettie Boggs, representing the Temecula Valley Unified School District, advised the Commission the letters sent out to the surrounding property owners from the school district, advising them of the public hearing, incorrectly stated the meeting was to be held on Tuesday, September 21, 1993. Ms. Boggs said the TVUSD requests the continuance to ensure the affected property owners would all be able to attend the meeting. Frank Kimbro, 31231 Corte Alhambra, Temecula, asked for an explanation of the warehouse uses at this facility. Mr. Kimbro also asked staff what will happen with the filling station located on the site. He asked for clarification of the following: What is PCMINOg/20/93 -5- 9127/93 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 a Negative Declaration? What is the time schedule on the new construction? What is the school district's definition of facilities? David Ciabattoni, 41686 Avenida De La Reina, Temecula, said he would like the City to get involved in controlling the hours of operation and types of hazardous materials to be stored at this facility. Mr. Ciabattoni said the original intended use for this site was an administrative facility and he would like assurances that once the school district moves the bus facility and uses from this site, future uses would be limited to administrative uses only. Planning Director Gary Thornhill said staff would respond to the concerns in writing. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to continue Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. I to October 4, 1993. The motion was unanimously carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 9. Plannine ADolication No. 93-0027. Amendment No. 2 - Public Use Permit Proposed church facility to be constructed in three (3) phases located at the northeasterly corner of Margarita Road and Rancho Vista Roads. Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report and advised Condition No. 12 has been corrected to require a check in the amount of $1328.00 payable to the County Clerk. Commissioner Fahey said she had concerns regarding the limited access this site. Commissioner Chiniaeff questioned whether the applicant could utilize the water district easement as secondary access to the proposed site. Principal Engineer Ray Casey advised the Commission the Rancho California Water District is not agreeable to grading of their easement. Director Thornhill said the Commission could direct staff to address whether Rancho California Water District would consider access from their easement. Commissioner Blair expressed a concern that the access allowed for a left hand turning movement across Margarita which is a heavily traveled road with a 50 mph speed PCMIN09/20/93 -6- 9127/93 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 Principal Engineer Ray Casey said the traffic study indicates it is a safe turning movement. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:45 P.M. Russell Rumansoff, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, architect for the project, requested the following modifications to the Conditions of Approval: No. 47, allow applicant to submit schematic landscape and irrigation plans; No. 67, the applicant feels they have already paid this fee and requests this requirement be waived; and No. 69, the applicant has paid for the widening of Margarita and curb and gutter along Margarita and feels they have satisfied their requirement. Lee Wailerr, 30830 Avenida Del Reposa, Temecula, representing the church, concurred with the changes to the conditions of approval as stated by the architect. Planning Director Gary Thornhill said Condition 47 can be changed to read "prior to the issuance of building permits"; Condition 67 can be deleted if staff determines the applicant has satisfied this requirement; and, Condition 69 will be considered by staff. Commissioner Hoagland stated concerns regarding traffic. Principal Engineer Ray Casey said it is the opinion of the traffic consultant and staff, that the proposal is the best possible solution for this site. Chairman Ford said he would like to ensure that the site is approved with a three lane driveway and is not restricted to right turns only. Planning Director Gary Thornhill asked the Commission to allow staff to explore a second option for access. It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to close the public hearing at 7:08 P.M. and adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 93-0027, Amendment No. 2 (Public Use Permit) and; adopt Resolution No. 93-22 Approving Planning Application No. 93-0027, Amendment No. 2, subject to the Conditions of Approval, amending Condition No. 12 requiring $1328.00; Condition No. 47, landscape and irrigation plans prior to the issuance of building permits; Condition No. 67, add the language "if applicable"; Condition No. 69 add the language "if applicable"; and, adding a condition requiring a three lane access. Principal Engineer Ray Casey said this was part of Condition No. 59. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Fahey, Ford FCMINOe/20193 -7- 9127193 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Hoagland None SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 PLANNING DIRECTORS REPORT Director Gary Thornhill reported the following: * A General Plan Public Hearing will be held before the City Council on September 21, 1993. Commissioner Chiniaeff asked for a summary of changes made to the General Plan by the Council. * The Development Code is proceeding. * Staff will be reviewing a project featuring a village center concept for Highway 79 South and will encourage Commission and City Council input. * The controversy regarding street vending carts will be presented to the City Council on September 28, 1993. PLANNING COMMISSIONER REPORTS Commissioner Chiniaeff said City Council representation would be helpful during the Development Code committee meetings. Chairman Ford asked staff to include traffic report summaries in the agenda report. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to adjourn at 7:30 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on Monday, October 4, 1993, 6:00 P.M. at Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. Chairman Steven Ford Secretary PCMINOg/20/93 -8- 9/27193 ITEM #3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DAT~: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning October 4, 1993 Director's Hearing Cases Update There were no Director's Hearing cases for September 1993. ITEM #4 IVIEMORANDUIVl TO: Planning Commission FROM: Gary Thornhill, Planning Director DATE: October 4, 1993 SUBfECT: Crowne Hill Country Club PREPAI~I~,D BY: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner This item has been placed on the agenda by staff to receive input from the Planning Commission. The applicant approached the City with this new design to replace the two previously approved tentative maps on this site (23143 and 26941). The applicant has prepared the attached letter to provide more information about their request. Attachments: 1. Letter from Taylor Woodrow dated September 24, 1993 ATTACHlVrE.~ NO. 1 LETTER FROM TAYLOR WOODROW DATED SEPTEMBER 24, 1993 !Monday september 2~, 1993 lO:07am -- From '7145830759' -- Page ~ .... ..?~.~.s~b~s_.~ ........ ~ ~ nSS~C~nTE ~ T~ls P~ TAYLOR NODROW T,~WmH. CdllleeUe. 144elNdgeReubtNe tagma lgk. CA ~.---,-tSSS Tdeehme 714 ESl-tq~. Honorebte Members of :he Rannin~ Commissioo 43174 BuWneee Pa'k Ddv~ Temecute, Cedlfomle 92590 RE: Crowne Hill Country CAub Taylor woodrow Homes would Eke to take this apporturdly to present. in a working session, a new proposal for our Crow~e Hi project This pm. Ject Is · 459 acre property within the City of Ternecul~ off BLmerfield Stage Road. The curRmt snifflemerits are as follows: O O ApprovecI and AdOpted EIR by the County of Riverside ApptOved Vest/ng Tentative TraCt Map 23143 Rrst Phase Recorded Final Map 23143-1. which is a por6on of Tentalive Tract Map 23143 Appmved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 26941 Our new project proposal i,'Ki~eS adding a golf course into 1he community, whl~ stal providing two park atms, eschod site and atutal of 1,054dwdling units, Total open space will roe kx~eeaed from 55_+ ecra to 213± acres indud'mg the golf course. Many of ~e h. cmrneavAnem in the are have exl~ed ~ support for ~ new ~ whk:h will acid to h apen space of the erea, Thererwdrculatjanpalternisemajor improvement over Our current approved plb~m; more d~r,-ed neig~ rand fewer IMonday September 27, 1993 lO:07am -- From '7145830759' -- Page 3j 714~9 ~ g, P~SSOCIATE F~Q35 T-El15 P-13EL3 ~ 2>'7 '9::3 10:6'7 September 24, 1~1~3 Page 2 The ex~ before you em only at ~c~K~ptual mages and rnay be revised f~ better lat oriemetion and to maxfmize distant views. In implementing the new praJeC/, we ~re required to prcx:ess e General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, a Development Agreement ~md Tms'm~m Tract Map leading to the recordSdon of ~e new ~ We here met w~h e,m City'a staff and need their assurance Of an expedll~ approval proces~ !]efQm s',aff can give us mese assurances, they require your support m' lhe project end our ~ of expedited approvals. Dueix) the marketcond~encl exffacostassociatedwlthffiee~prcx:ess, obtaining E~oprovals in a timely manner is a crucial factor In au~ de~blon whelher or not to proceed with 1i~ new proposal. We appredate your lime and atten~on in ltls worldnil session end would like to obtain your input and support Sincerely, TAYLOR WOODROW HOMFS CALIFORNIA, LTD. President VIce President ITEM #5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning October 4, 1993 Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1 - Expansion of the existing Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) facility in two (2) phases. Phase 1 consists of the construction of a 15,300 square foot warehouse, the conversion of an existing bus facility to 3,840 square feet of additional warehouse space, and the removal of ten ( 1 O) trailers and the drivers lounge. Phase 2 consists of a 15,300 warehouse expansion and a 13,824 square foot expansion to the District Office. PREPARED BY: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1; and ADOPT Resolution No. 93- Approving Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND This item was continued at the request of the applicant at the September 20, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. The applicant requested the continuance because of an error contained in a letter that they mailed to property owners within 600 feet of the project. This letter stated that the hearing was to be held on September 21, 1993, when in actuality, it was to be held on September 20, 1993. ANALYSIS The Planning Commission received testimony from two (2) individuals at the hearing on September 20, 1993. Staff was directed to address their concerns in this agenda report. Staff provided responses to the following items: Negative Declaration defined, R-1 defined (the Agenda Report dated September 20, 1993, incorrectly identified zoning on the site as R-R (Rural-Residential); however, the correct zoning for the site is Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village, R-1 use and development standards), and what process would need R:~S\STAFFRPT\I58PA93,PC2 9/29/93 klb to be followed should uses on the site change to uses other than those associated with Public/Institutional Facilities. The applicant has provided responses to the following concerns (reference Attachment No. 4): storage of hazardous materials, time schedule for the project (including the removal of the buses), a definition of the word "facilities", where the funding for the project will come from, specific hours of operation and the types of products stored in the warehouse, Staff received a telephone call from a concerned resident on Tuesday, September 21, 1993. Staff requested additional responses regarding the following items: the use of forklifts and other machinery on site and loading/unloading of the trucks. Neaative Declaration A Negative Declaration is defined in Section 15371 of the California Environmental Equality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as: a written statement by the Lead Agency briefly describing the reason that a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA, will not have a significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The City of Temecula is the Lead Agency for the project as described above. Staff prepared an Initial Study for the project and determined that the project would not have a negative effect on the environment. Since the project was determined to not have a negative effect on the environment, the legal mechanism for stating this under state law (CEQA) is the Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration is considered and adopted by the Planning Commission. A Notice of Determination for a Negative Declaration is then mailed to the County Clerk and posted for thirty days after its adoption, Rural Residential/R-1 Defined As mentioned above, the zoning for the site is Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village). Uses permitted for the site include public school administration buildings and facilities as well as those contained in Section 6.1 of Ordinance No. 348 (R-l: One-Family Dwellings). Uses permitted in the R-1 zone include: field crops, flower and vegetable gardening, noncommercial keeping of horses, public parks and home occupations. Uses permitted provided a plot plan has been approved include: beauty shops operated from a home, temporary real estate tract offices located within a subdivision and nurseries, horticulture. Uses permitted with a conditional use permit are: mobilehome parks. The Process to Chanae From Uses Other Than Public/Institutional Facilities The draft General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Public/Institutional Facilities. The Plan states: "The public and institutional designation is intended for a wide range of public and private uses including schools, transportation facilities, government offices, public utilities, libraries, museums, public art galleries, hospitals, and cultural facilities." If a use is proposed on the site which is not consistent with the Land Use Designation, then a General Plan Amendment will be necessary. Upon adoption of the Development Code, if a use is proposed on the site which is not consistent with the zoning designation for the site, then a change of zone application will be necessary. Both processes will require environmental review and a noticed public hearing prior to approval. R:\S\STAFFRI~'~IS8PA93.PC2 9129/93 Iflb 2 The current zoning for the site is Specific Plan (S.P, 199 - Margarita Village). The Land Use designation for the site is School Administration. If a use is proposed on the site which is not consistent with the Land Use Designation within the Specific Plan, then a Specific Plan Amendment will be also necessary. Again, this process will require environmental review and a noticed public hearing prior to approval. The following issues were addressed by TVUSD: Storac3e of Hazardous Materials The warehouse will not store any hazardous materials other than paint thinner, rubber cement, and bleach. This was identified bythe TVUSD Safety Officer who oversees all Material Safety Data Sheets on stored products. These items will be stored in their original containers. Time Schedule for the Project The project timeline, pending Planning Commission approval in October, would be to begin construction of the warehouse in January 1994, with completion in mid-April 1994. The removal of the maintenance and transportation functions could not occur until the completion of a separate project which would provide a new facility for those functions at another location. That project is currently projected to be complete in August, 1994. If all approvals go smoothly, and the August date can be met, all maintenance and transportation functions would be moved to the new location at that time. Definition of "Facilities" The facilities that TVUSD is considering for the project includes offices, printing services, warehouse and book depository activities and teacher and staff training rooms. Fundina of the Project Funding for the project is from bonding of the school district pass-through increment of the City Redevelopment Agency. Hours of Operation and Types of Products Stored in the Warehouse The school district warehouse will not be in operation prior to 7:00 AM and will have very light traffic before 9:00 AM. A condition of approval has been added that limits the hours of operation for the warehouse facility between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM. As mentioned above, the warehouse will paint thinner, rubber cement, and bleach in their original containers. In addition, the warehouse will be used to store furniture and supplies needed for the operation of the schools. Use of Forklifts and Other Machinery on Site/Loadina and UnloadinQ of the Trucks The new warehouse facility will allow TVUSD to store materials inside. These items were previously stored on the outside and therefore forklifts had to be used on the site to transport materials. Upon completion of the warehouse facility, forklift activity would be from the unloading dock to inside the warehouse. Any other machinery would be transferred to the new Transportation and Maintenance Facility upon its construction. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Resolution No. 93- - Blue Page 5 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 Planning Commission Staff Report, September 20, 1993 - Blue Page 16 Temecula Valley Unified School District Letter, September 22, 1993 - Blue Page 17 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 93- ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TFIY. CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVEqG PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0158, A.M!~ND1VI~NT NO. 1 TO CONSTRUCT APPROXIMATELY 34,440 SQUARE FEET OF WARI~HOUSE SPACE AND 13,824 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE IN TWO PHASES ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 10.94 ACRES LOCATED AT 31350 RANCHO VISTA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 954-020-002. WttEREAS, Temecula Valley Unified School District fried Planning Application No. 93-0158 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WI~,REAS, said Planning Application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Planning Application on September 20, 1993, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Planning Application; WltF, REAS, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing pertaining to said Planning Application on September 20, 1993; WItF~REAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Planning Application on October 4, 1993, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in suppert or opposition to said Planning Application; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Planning Application; NOW, THEREFORE, THE 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 fmdings: A. Pursuant to Government Code S~tion 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, if all of the following requirements axe met: R:\S~STAFFP, PTX1511pA93.PC2 9129193 klb 6 1. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan. 2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a. There 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. b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. 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. C. The Planning Commission, in approving of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the foliowing fmdings, to wit: 1. There is reasonable probability that Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1 proposed will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. The draft General Plan land use designation for the site is Public/Institutional Facilities. The draft General Plan states: "Additional public and institutional uses may be developed in the residential or non-residential land use designations under the procedures established in the Development Code." Until the Development Code is adopted, Staff utilizes the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348. As mentioned above, Ordinance No. 348.2922 (the Ordinance adopting Specific Plan No. 199) includes public school administrative buildings and facilities as permitted uses. The project as proposed is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199 (Margaxita Village), Ordinance No. 348, and the draft General Plan. 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. The land use designation for the site is identified in the draft General Plan as Public/Institutional Facilities. Uses which am consistent with the Public/Institutional Facilities land use designation will ultimately be permitted on this site, and would include educational facilities. R:\S~STAFFRPT\ISSpA9].PL'2 9/29/93 klb 7 3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360, and Ordinance No. 348. The proposed project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village. The project is located within Planning Area No. 28 of Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village, and is identified as a 11.0 acre school administration site within the Specific Plan. The project as designed and conditioned meets all the requirements of Specific Plan No. 199. 4. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general weftare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use. In addition, 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. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated fight-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly maintained road (Margarita Road). D. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1 to construct approximately 34,440 square feet of warehouse space and 13,824 square feet of office space in two phases on a parcel containing 10.94 acres located at 31350 Rancho Vista Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 954-020-002 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. R:\S\STAFFRPT\lSgPA93.1~2 9/29/93 Itlb 8 Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of October ,1993. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I tt~,I!RRy 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 4th day of October, 1993 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNtill J, SECRETARY R:\Sx, STAFFRIrr\lSgPA93.1~2 9/29/93 klb 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. I Project Description: To construct approximately 34,440 square feet of warehouse space and 13,824 square feet of office space in two phases. Assessor's Parcel No.: 954-020-002 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT GENERAL The use hereby permitted by this Plot Plan is for approximately 34,440 square feet of warehouse space and 13,824 square feet of office space in two phases. Hours of operation for the warehouse facility shall be between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM. 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 attach, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1. 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 shell become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on the Site Plan marked Exhibit D, or as amended by these conditions. 5. Building elevations shell be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit E. Colors and materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit F (color material board). A minimum of 193 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. Two hundred twenty-four (224) parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit D. R:~S\STAFFRPTX155PA93.!aC2 9/29/93 kib 11 A minimum of five (5) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit D, 9. Thirteen {13) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided as shown on Exhibit D. 10. Landscaping of the site shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit D. WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT 11, The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars (978.00) fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15094. 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)). PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 12. Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. 13. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 2 (warehouse expansion and office expansion), the applicant shall file an application for approval by the Planning Director for the elevations for Phase 2. Accompanying the application shall be three (3) sets of elevations and the appropriate filing fee. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS 14. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 15. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 16. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests, The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. R:~S\STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC2 9/29/93 klb 12 17. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 18. A maintenance bond, to guarantee the installation of plantings and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning. Said bond amount shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review and approval prior to the submittal of the bond. 19. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 20. The applicant shall 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. 21. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 22. Prior to the commencement of any construction work, obtain all building plan and permit approvals. 23. Provide occupancy approval for all existing buildings (i.e. finialed building permit, Certificate of Occupancy). 24. All existing buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility regulations. 25. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 26. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C. 27. The applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 28. The applicant shall provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS 29. The Applicant shall 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 30. 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. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 31. The Applicant shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 32. The Applicant 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 the Applicant requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Applicant shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to the Applicant. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Applicant 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 $10,000o The Applicant 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, the Applicant 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 or traffic impact fee for this project; orovided that the Applicant is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. R:\S\STAFFRPT~I58PA93.PC2 9/29/93 klb 14 PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMITS 33. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within the existing City right-of-way. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS 34. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 35. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works. OTHER AGENCIES 36. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittel dated August 6, 1993, a copy of which is attached. 37. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated August 9, 1993, a copy of which is attached. 38. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittel dated August 11, 1993, a copy of which is attached. R:\S\$TAFFRF~158PA93.PC2 9/29/93 Idb 15 TO: FROM: RE: Co, nty of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONiMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPi'. ~~~onmental Health Specialist IV PLOT PLAN NO. PA.93 -0158 RECEIVED AUG 12 1993 Atls'd, . DATE: August 6, 1993 The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the proposed expansion of the Te~necuta Valley. Uaified School District Facility. and has the following comments: 1. It appears that thls facility may be on a subsurface suw'~e disposal sw. stem. If this is the case, the followmg is ~eqtta'ed: The existrig subsurface sew-age disposal system must be ey,~mined by a C-42 Stat¢ Lic~'d Plumber. The siz= and condition of the existing .syslem must be cenitied by the above as per Eh-panment ofEnw, ronmenlal reqmrn~ents. In addition, it may be necessary. to verify. the size of the .system by Obtainin~ a copy Of the building permit and si~ed job card from the Riverside County Building and SafeLy ~l::~'l~'~enL A detailed, scaled (I"=40· m.ax~mum) plot ply. showing all fix'tur~ serving the e.'dsting subsurface sewage disposal system. The complete subsurfaco sewage disposal sysl~m, in~l, uiiv~g 100% expm~io~must be plotted on the plot plan. 4. Detailed soils tasting my be rerImred if the above r~nnot be e~F~ted or.. a the area is within a high vra~ table area or an area where soils have poor leaching characteristics. b the existing subsurface sym have failed or is failing. c the existing subs~ .sysU:m are of i~tt,-quate size or locate1 In an tw~'~ptable area CLe,,aehlinas are not to be located in a vehicular ,.raffic2parkin8 area - paved or uapa. ved). 5, A "will-serve" letter fi'om the agency providing water OR 6. Should --qni~ary sewer be available, a "will-serve" letter from the appropriate sewering district shall be x~xtuired. 7 PRIOR TO BUILDING PER}lIT Li'SU,,.LVCE, clearance from Riverside Comny Del~n~xenl of F~,,rdoas Services Matmals M~gemant Bra-neh (909) 358-5055. SMzd~ (909) 275-8980 J.M. HAPRIS ~ C:-IZ[F Rt ERSLDE COUNTY , FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 ~VEST SAN JACINTO AVENIJE - PER~RiS, CALIFORaNL-'. 92370 (714) 657-3183 TO: ATTEN: RE: Temecula Planning Department Matthew Fagan PA_93-0158 August 9, 1993 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Departmenn recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: 1. The Fire Department is re_ouired to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. 2. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2-2 1/2"), Will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 4. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire hydrants 5. The required fire flowmay be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire protection. 6. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant type, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall 'be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". 7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building plans. 8. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must appear on the title page of the building plans. 9. Prior to final inspection of any building , the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designation required fire lanes with appropriate lane paint. I0. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 1!. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00 to the City of Temecula for plan check fees. Please reference Plan Check number with remittance. 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit, with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check fees. 13. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the building and safety office. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering Staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Fire Safety Specialist lhncho Water 2 RECEIVED August 11, 1993 Mr. Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3605 AUG 13 1893 Water Availability APN 954-020-002 (PA.93-0158) Dear Mr. Fagan: Please be advised that the above-referenced property. is located ~vithin the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property. owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property, owner signing an Agency A~eement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Development En~neermg Manager SB:SD:ebI29-2/F186 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician August 17, 1993 AUG 2 o Matthew Fagan, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Temecula Valley Unified School District Plot Plan (PA 93-0158) Dear Mr. Fagan: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: General It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed expansion of the existing Temecula Valley Unified School District facility located on the north side of Rancho Vista Rd., between Avenida De La Reina and Via E1 Greco, (Assessor Parcel No. 954-020-002). The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area. However, it must be understood the available capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of the subject project, the status of the District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project. Sanitary Sewer The subject project is considered tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Other Issues The subject project representative must contact the District's Customer Service Department in.order to arrange for the following actions: Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San Jadnto Avenue, San Jacinto * Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E Oakland Avenue, Hernet, CA Matthew Fagan PA 93-0158 Augus~ 17, 1993 Page 2 plan check of onsite plumbing field inspection of cnsite plumbing revision to existing service account to reflect expanded facility Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, extension 468. Very truly yours, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT David G. ~" Senior Engineer Customer Service Department DGC/cz AB 93-863 Cwp-n~k-PA93015~.¢~z) ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION September 20, 1993 Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. I Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1; and APPROVEPlanning Apblication No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) REPRESENTATIVE: BGRP Architecture and Planning PROPOSAL: Expansion of the existing TVUSD facility in two (2) phases. Phase 1 consists of the construction of a 15,300 square foot warehouse, the conversion of an existing bus facility to 3,840 square feet of additional warehouse space, and the removal of ten (10) trailers and the drivers lounge. Phase 2 consists of a 15,300 warehouse expansion and a 13,824 square foot expansion to the District Office. LOCATION: 31350 Rancho Vista Road EXISTING ZONING: R-R (Rural Residential) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: S-P 199 (Margarita Village Specific Plan) R-R (Rural Residential) S-P 199 (Margarita Village Specific Plan) S-P 199 (Margarita Village Specific Plan) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: School/School Administration R:\S\STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Single-Family Residential Temecula Valley High School Metropolitan Water District Easement/Single-Family Residential Single-Family Residential PROJECT STATISTICS Building Area: Phase 1 - Warehouse: Phase 2 - Warehouse: Offices: Total: 19,140 square feet 15,300 square feet 13,824 square feet 48,264 square feet Parking Spaces Required: 193 Parking Spaces Provided: 224 BACKGROUND Planning Application No. 93-0158 was submitted to the Planning Department on July 23, 1993. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on August 12, 1993. Additional clarification of the site plan was requested at that time. Staff also requested a copy of the existing Transportation Reduction Plan for the TVUSD facility, a copy of the air emission and noise study prepared for the site and a copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Planning Application No. 93-0158 was deemed complete on August 26, 1993. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Planning Application No. 93-0158 is a proposal to expand the existing TVUSD facility in two (2) phases and relocate the bus maintenance and storage facility. Phase 1 consists of the construction of a 15,300 square foot warehouse, the conversion of an existing bus facility to 3,840 square feet of additional warehouse space, and the removal of ten (10) trailers, the drivers lounge and the bus maintenance and storage. Phase 2 proposes a 15,300 warehouse expansion and a 13,824 square foot expansion to the District Office. ANALYSIS Project Phasina As mentioned above, the project is proposed to be constructed in two (2) phases. In addition to the information stated above, paving of the northwest portion of the site and removal of existing trailers on the site will occur during Phase 1. Architecture The warehouse facility that will be constructed during Phase 1 of the project will be concrete block material. Pilaster elements have been included on the elevations to break up the vertical R:%S\STAFFRPT%lSaPA93.PC 9~8~93 mf 2 plane and a two (2) foot wide band traverses the building which breaks up the horizontal plane. The building is compatible with the existing buildings in terms of design and colors. As mentioned above, designs for the Phase 2 (warehouse expansion and office expansion) will be reviewed by Staff prior to the issuance of building permits for these items. Designs for the Phase 2 (warehouse expansion and office expansion) will be reviewed by Staff prior to the issuance of building permits for these items. Comoatibilitv With Adiacent Uses Homes are located adjacent to the northern and western boundaries of the project site. These homes have views into the site because the site is lower in elevation. Potential impacts have been mitigated through the use of landscaping along the perimeter of the site. Staff transmitted the landscape plan to the City's landscape architect for review and comment and the landscape architect determined that views of the facility from residences along the north, east and west sides will be sufficiently screened with the addition of these new planrings. NoiSe The project will result in an overall decrease in existing noise levels. The site is currently developed with a more intensive use (bus storage and maintenance) which will be relocated as a result of this project. The noise impacts from the buses which have been an issue would be substantially reduced when all phases are completed and the bus maintenance facility is relocated. This is based upon information contained in an acoustical report prepared for this site by Med-Tox Associates, Inc. dated January 21, 1991. With the removal of the buses from the site noise impacts are anticipated to decrease. Traffic The project will not generate additional traffic. The relocation of the bus storage and maintenance facility will result in a less intensive use of the site. Ultimate buildout of the site will include additional warehouse facilities and office/administration uses. A Transportation Demand Management (TOM) plan has already been established for this site and is currently being implemented, The TDM program is required under State Law and serves to mitigate any potential impacts to the traffic in the area as a result of development. EXISTING ZONING AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Existing zoning for the site is Specific Plan (S.P. 199 - Margarita Village). The Specific Plan land use designation for the site is school administration. Ordinance No. 348.2922 (the Ordinance adopting Specific Plan No. 199) includes public school administrative buildings and facilities as permitted uses. The draft General Plan land use designation for the site is Public/Institutional Facilities. The draft General Plan states: "Additional public and institutional uses may be developed in the residential or non-residential land use designations under the procedures established in the Development Code." Until the Development Code is adopted, Staff is utilizing the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348. As mentioned above, Ordinance No. 348.2922 (the Ordinance adopting Specific Plan No. 199) includes public school administrative buildings and facilities as permitted uses. The project as proposed is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village), Ordinance No. 348, and the draft General Plan. R:\S\STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC 918193 mf 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant affect on the environment, these effects will not be considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. These will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance, and therefore a Negative Declaration will be adopted. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Planning Application No. 93-0158 is a proposal to expand the existing TVUSD facility in two (2) phases and relocate the bus maintenance and storage facility, The building which is proposed in Phase 1 is compatible with the existing buildings in terms of design and colors. Designs for Phase 2 (warehouse expansion and office expansion) will be reviewed by Staff prior to the issuance of building permits for these items. The project will result in an overall decrease to existing noise levels and will not generate additional traffic. The project as proposed is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village), Ordinance No. 348, and the draft General Plan. The Initial Study prepared for the project determined the impacts associated with this project are not significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. FINDINGS There is reasonable probability that Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1 proposed will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. The draft General Plan land use designation for the site is Public/Institutional Facilities. The draft General Plan states: "Additional public and institutional uses may be developed in the residential or non-residential land use designations under the procedures established in the Development Code." Until the Development Code is adopted, Staff utilizes the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348. As mentioned above, Ordinance No. 348.2922 (the Ordinance adopting Specific Plan No. 199) includes public school administrative buildings and facilities as permitted uses. The project as proposed is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village), Ordinance No. 348, and the draft General Plan. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. The land use designation for the site is identified in the draft General Plan as Public/institutional Facilities. Uses which are consistent with the Public/Institutional Facilities land use designation will ultimately be permitted on this site, and would include educational facilities. R:\S\STAFFRPT~158PA93,PC 918/93 rnf The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360, and Ordinance No. 348. The proposed project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village. The project is located within Planning Area No. 28 of Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village, and is identified as a 11.0 acre school administration site within the Specific Plan. The project as designed and conditioned meets all the requirements of Specific Plan No. 199. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use. In addition, 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. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly maintained road (Margarita Road). Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Resolution No. 93- - Blue Page 6 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11 Initial Study - Blue Page 17 Exhibits - Blue Page 35 R:~S\STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 93-t R:\S\STAFFRPT~15iBPA93.PC 9/8193 mf 6 ATrACY/~,IENT NO. 1 PC RESOLLvrION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION OF TY[F~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TFFF, CITY OF T~'VIECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0158, AI~.ND1VfY, NT NO. 1 TO CONSTRUCT APPROX/1VIA. TELY 34,440 SQUARE FEET OF WAlik':HOUSE SPACE AND 13,824 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE IN TWO PHASES ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 10.94 ACRES LOCATED AT 31350 RANCHO VISTA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 954-020-002 WttEREAS, Temecuta Valley Unified School District fried Planning Application No. 93-0158 in accordance with the Riverside County l-and Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WltF, REAS, said Planning Application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Planning Application on September 20, 1993, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WWEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Planning Application; NOW, TI~.REFORE, TIFF. PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TI~MECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERsMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findines. 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 th~ (30) months following incorporation. Durillg 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 hw that its decisions be consistent with the General Plan, if all of the following requirements are met: 1. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan. R:\S\STAFFRPTX158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 7 2. The planning agency finds. in approving projects and taking other actions. including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a. There 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. b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c. The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended 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. C. The Planning Commission, in approving of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following f'mdings, to wit: 1. There is reasonable probability that Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1 proposed will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. The draft General Plan land use designation for the site is Public/Institutional Facilities. The draft General Plan states: "Additional public and institutional uses may be developed in the residential or non-residential land use designations under the procedures established in the Development Code." Until the Development Code is adopted, Staff utilizes the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348. As mentioned above, Ordinance No. 348.2922 (the Ordinance adopting Specific Plan No. 199) includes public school administrative buildings and facilities as permitted uses. The project as proposed is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village), Ordinance No. 348, and the draft General Plan. 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. The land use designation for the site is identified in the draft General Plan as Public/Institutional Facilities. Uses which are consistent with the Public/Institutional Facilities land use designation will ultimately be permitted on this site, and would include educational facilities. 3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360, and Ordinance No. 348. The proposed project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 199 - Margaxita Village. The project is located within Planning Area No. 28 of Specific Plan No. 199 - Margarita Village, and is identified as a 11.0 acre school R:\SXSTAFFRPT%I58PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 8 administration site within the Specific Plan. The project as designed and conditioned meets all the requirements of Specific Plan No. 199. 4. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use. In addition, 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. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly maintained road (Margarita Road). D. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1 to construct approximately 34,440 square feet of warehouse space and 13,824 square feet of office space in two phases on a parcel containing 10.94 acres located at 31350 Rancho Vista Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 954-020-002 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of September, 1993. ST~VEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN R:'~S\STAFFRP'T~159PA93,PC 918193 rrtf 9 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof. held on the 20th day of September, 1993 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMIVlISSIONHRS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORN'HTLL SECRETARY R:\$'~STAFFRP'T~158PA93,pC 918/93 rnf 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\S~,STAFFRPT~I 58PA93.PC 918193 mf 1 I CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. I Project Description: To construct approximately 34,440 square feet of warehouse space and 13,824 square feet of office space in two phases. Assessor's Parcel No.: 954-020-002 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General The use hereby permitted by this Plot Plan is for approximately 34,440 square feet of warehouse space and 13,824 square feet of office space in two phases. 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 attach, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1. The City of Temecuta 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. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on the Site Plan marked Exhibit D, or as amended by these conditions. 5. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit E. Colors and materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit F (color material board). A minimum of 193 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. Two hundred twenty-four (224) parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit D. R:\S~STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC Sl8/93 mf 12 A minimum of five (5) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit D. 9. Thirteen (13) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided as shown on Exhibit __ 10. Landscaping of the site shall be in substantial conformonce with that shown on Exhibit D. Within Fortv-Eioht (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project 11. The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cah Code of Regulations 15094. 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)). Prior to the Issuance of BuildinQ Permits 12. Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown, Plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. 13. Prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase 2 (warehouse expansion and office expansion), the applicant shall file an Administrative Plot Plan (PPA). Accompanying the PPA shall be three (3) sets of elevations and the appropriate filing fee. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 14. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 15. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 16. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 17. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone '- In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 18. A maintenance bond, to guarantee the installation of plantings and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning. Said bond amount shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review and approval prior to the submittal of the bond. 19. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 20. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 editio~ of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecuta Code. 21. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 22. Prior to the commencement of any construction work, obtain all building plan and permit approvals. 23. Provide occupancy approval for all existing buildings (i.e. finialed building permit, Certificate of Occupancy). 24. All existing buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility regulations. 25. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 26. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C. 27. The applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 28. The applicant shall provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. R:\S\STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC 918193 mf 14 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Prior to issuance of Gradina Permits 29. The Applicant shall 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. Prior to Issuance of Buildino Permits 30. 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. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid, 31. The Applicant shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 32. The Applicant 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 the Applicant requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Applicant shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to the Applicant. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Applicant shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be 92.00 per square foot, not to exceed 910,000. The Applicant 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, the Applicant 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 or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that the Applicant is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. Prior to Issuance of an Encroachment Permits 33. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within the existing City right-of-way. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 34. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works, R:~,S~STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 15 35. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works. OTHER AGENCIES 36. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated August 6, 1993, a copy of which is attached. 37. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated August 9, 1993, a copy of which is attached. 38. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated August 11, 1993, a copy of which is attached. R:%S\STAFFRPT~15flPA93.PC 91BI93 mf 16 TO: FROM: RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CITY OF TExMECULA PLANNING DEPT. ~TN~onmental Heath Specialist IV PLOT PLAN NO. PA93-0158 RECEIVED AUG 12 1993 Arts 'd, DATE: August 6, 1993 The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the proposed expan~on of the Teanecula Valley, Unified School District Facility. and hats the following comments: 1. It appeats that this facility may be on a subsufface sewage disposal sy. stem. jfthis is the case, the followmg is required: , The existing subsurface sewage disposal sysxem must be examined by a C -42 State Licen.s~ Plumber. The size and condition of the exxsting .swslem must be certified by the above as per Department of Envkronw~1al reqturements. In addition, it may be necessary to verify the r, ze of the system by obtaining a copy of the building perllllt and signet job card from the Rivebide County ]hilalng and Safety Depafl:mat A detailed, scaled (I '=40' maxnnum) plot plan showing all fixtures serving the exisling subsurface sewage disposal system. The complete subsurface sewage di.~posal sy.s~'m, thcl,utlng 100% expansion must be phit',~. on the plot plan. 4. Detailed soils testing my be required ff the above cannot be effested on a the area is within a high wata ruble area or on ar~ where soils have poor le~hin~ chamcte~llies. b the existing subsufface .s2/st~m have failed or is failln~ c the esdsting subsurface .syslem mr~ of ;n~elequate size or locat~ in an tw~rr,~mble area (Leachimes are not m be located in a vehicular trafficjp~king area - paved or un~ved). 5. A "will-serve" leF. e~ fi tan the aBe~cy providin~ watt, OR 6. Should sauitary sewer be available, a "will-serve" letter from the appropriate sewenng diswict shall be required. 7 PRIOR TO BUILDING PER~IIT I.V. VUANCE. cleatanc~ fx~n Riverside County Deparanent ofl-r,-~dous S~rvicea M.t~'i, als Mauagemeat Br~neh (909) 358.-5055. Slvi:~ (909)275-8980 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMF, NT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO A~/ENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNL~ 92370 (714) 657-3183 T0: Temecula Planning Department ATTEN: Matthew Fagan RE: PA93-0158 August 9, 1993 with respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recoa~nends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: 1. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. 2. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job sine. 3. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2-2 1/2"), Will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 4. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire hydrants 5. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire protection. 6. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant type, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". 7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building plans. 8. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must appear on the title page of the building plans. 9. Prior to final inspection of any building , the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designation required fire lanes with appropriate lane paint. I0. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00 to the City of Temecula for plan check fees. Please reference Plan Check number with remittance. 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit, with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check fees. 13. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the building and safety office. All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to the Planning and Engineering Staff. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Fire Safety Specialist anr, ho Wmr RECEIVED August 11, 1993 Mr. Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 AUG 131 93 Water Availability APN 954-020-002 (PA93-0158) Dear Mr. Fagan: Please be advised that the above-referenced property. is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Development Engineering Manager Sa:SO:eb129-Z/F186 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician '~DE co AugUst 17, 1993 AUG 2 0 Matthew Fagan, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Temecula Valley Unified School District Plot Plan (PA 93-0158) Dear Mr. Fagan: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: General It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed expansion of the existing Temecula Valley Unified School District facility located on the north side of Rancho Vista Rd., between Avenida De La Reina and Via E1 Greco, (Assessor Parcel No. 954-020-002). The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area. However, it must be understood the available capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of the subject project, the status of the District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project. Sanitary Sewer The subject project is considered tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Other Issues The subject project representative must contact the District's Customer Service Department in.order to arrange for the following actions: Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8500 · Telephone(909) 925-7676 · Fax(909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San jacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E Chtel~nd Avenue, Hemer., CA Matthew Fagan PA 93-0158 August 17, 1993 Page 2 plan check of onsite plumbing field inspection of onsite plumbing revision to existing service account to reflect expanded facility Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, extension 468. Very truly yours, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT · ~- '~_e -" ''~ ^ i.,' David G. ~ Senior Engineer Customer Service Department DGC/cz AB 93-863 {wp-n~k-PA930158,ciz) A'I'i'ACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL STUDY R:',S~STAFFFIPT~I SePA93.PC 9/~/93 mf 17 City of Temecula Planning Department Initial Environmental Study I. BACKGROUND LNFORMATION 1. Name of Project: 2. Case Numbers: 3. Location of Project: 4. Description of Project: 5. Date of Environmental Assessment: 6. Name of Proponent: 7. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) Warehouse Facility Planning Application No. 93-0158, Amendment No. 1 31350 Rancho Vista Road Expansion to the existing TVUSD facility in two (2) phases. Phase 1 consists of the construction of a 15,300 square foot warehouse, the conversion of an existing bus facility to 3,840 square feet of additional warehouse space, and the removal of ten (10) trailers and the drivers lounge. Phase 2 proposes a 15,300 warehouse expansion and a 13,824 square foot expansion to the District Office. August 25, 1993 ~Temecula Valley Unified School District CFVUSD) 31350 Rancho Vista Road Temecula, CA 92592 (909) 695-7340 ENVIRON1VIENTAL I1VIPACTS (Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section IIl) 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? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical featares? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Yes Maybe N__q X X R:\S~STAFFRPT~358PA93.PC 918/93 mf 18 f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion? The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake7 h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground failure, or similar hazards? i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage panems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Yes Maybe No X X R:\S\STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 19 Yes Maybe No 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 b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants? __ __ X__ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation. or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ _ __X 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)? __ __ _X_X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened. or endangered species of animals? __ __ __X c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __ __ __X d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? __ __ __X e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? __ __ ..X.X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? __ __ __X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X __ c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? __ __ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? X __ 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? __ __ __X b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described in a community or General Plan? __ __ __X R:\SXSTAFFRPTHSSPA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 20 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? 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, pesticicles, 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 Fowth 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? 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? 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? Yes Maybe N._.Qo X X X X X X X R:\S\STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of f~el or energy7 b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 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? b. Communications systems? c. Water systems? d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage systems? f. Solid waste disposal systems7 g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above? 17. Hmnan I-Iealth. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and schools) to toxic pollutant emissions? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No X X X a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? R:\S\STAFFRP'r~158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 22 19. 20. Yes Maybe No b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? __ X c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? __ X Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities? _ _ Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic site? _ _ __X b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? __ __ X__ c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? __ __ ___X d. Restrictions m existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? __ __ __X R:\S%STAFFRPT%lSBPA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 23 III. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL II~iPACTS EaHh 1.a. l.b. l.d. i.e. 1.f. 1,g. No. The proposal will not result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures. Manufactured slopes already exist on the site, and additional landscaping is included in the project for erosion control. Construction and grading for this development will not be at depths which would affect any geologic substructures. No impacts are foreseen as a result of this project. Yes. The proposal will result in the disruption, displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the soil. All grading activity requires some form of disruption, displacement, compaction and/or overcovering of the soil. Impacts are not considered significant because the site has previously been graded and because the amount of disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soil will be minimal (grading is less than 50 cubic yards). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes. The proposal will result in a change in the site wpography and ground surface relief features. The topography of the site has already been modified into its current configuration. Additional grading is proposed for the project (less than 50 cubic yards), however, since the amount of grading will be minimal, modification to topography and ground surface relief features not be considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The proposal will not result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical futures. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. Development of the site will not result in increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site. Hardacape will be placed in the remaining portion of the site which is currently unimproved (din). In addition, as mentioned in response l.a., additional landscaping is included in the project for erosion control. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The project proposal will not result in changes in siltation, deposkion or erosion. Reference responses 1 .a. and 1 .e. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The proposal will not result in modifications to any wash, channel, creek, river or lake. None exist on the project site, nor are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\S~,STAFFRPq'~158PA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 24 l.h. 1.i. Aid 2.a..b. Water 3.b. 3.c. Yes. Development of the site will expose people and property to earthquake hazards since the project is located in Southern California. an area which is seismically active. Any potential impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Information contained in the City of Temecula General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (dated August 12, 1992), the Southwest Area Community Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (adopted May, 1989) and the Margarita Village Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (certified April, 1986) states that the project will not expose people or property to geologic hazards such as landslides, mudslides, ground failure or liquefaction. No known landslides are located on the site or proximate to the site. The same is true for mudslides. The potential for ground failure and liquefaction is also low in this area. No. The proposal does not include development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as identified by the State of California, Resource Agency Department of Conservation Special Studies Zone Map. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes. The project will result in air emissions both in the short and long-run. Air emissions and objectionable odors will occur during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. The site was previously used for school, office/administrative, warehousing, and storage and maintenance of buses. The project proposes to relocate the bus storage and maintenance and replace it with additional warehousing operations and office/administrative uses. This will ultimately result in a less intense use of the site. The impact to air emissions created by the buses was not considered significant. Because of this and since the site will not be used as intensely due to the conversion of uses on the site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The project will not result in alterations of air movement, temperature, or moisture, or in any change in climate either locally or regionally. The scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No. The proposal will not result in changes to currents, to the course or direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters. The project site is not located adjacent to either marine or flesh water sources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes. The proposal will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, impacts are mitigated through site design. Existing drainage conveyances safely and adequately handle the existing runoff and any potential runoff which will be created by this project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The proposal will not result in alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. The project is not located within or adjacent to an identified floodway. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:'~S~,STAFFRPT~lSBPA93.PC 9/8/93 mf 25 3.d. No. The proposal will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody. No major waterbodies are located in the subject project area, therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.e. Yes. The proposal will result in discharges into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ('NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.f. No. The proposal will not result in an alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters. Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The proposal will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. Reference response 3.f. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The project will not result in the reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies. Water service currently exists at the project site. Additional water service will be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD) upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner (based upon transmittal dated August 11, 1993, a copy of which is on file with the Planning Department). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.i. No. The proposal will not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. Reference response 3.c. In addition, the project site is not located within the boundaries of the Dam Inundation Area as identified in the General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecuta dated August 12, 1993. Plant Life No. The proposal will not result in any change to the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants. The site has been previously graded, developed, and landscaped. The project is considered "infdl" with development existing on the site, to the north, south, east and west. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.b. No. The proposal will not result in a reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants. There are no unique or rare, threatened or endangered species of plants on the site, therefore, none will be significantly affeaed (Reference response 4.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:%S\STAFFRPT%158pA93.PC 918193 mf 4.c. No. Development of the site will not result in the creation of a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species due to the fact that the project is considered "in-fill" and is surrounded by existing development to the north, south, east and west. Although the project proposes species of plants which do not currently exist on the site, it is not being introduced into an area of native vegetation. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.d. No. The proposal will not result in a reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project since no prime fermiand, farm]and of statewide or local importance, or unique farmland is located within the project site. Animal Life 5.a.b.d.e. No. The project will not result in a change in the diversi~ of species, or numbers of species of animals. The project site lies within the Riverside County Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan Preliminat~t Study Area, however, the project itself will not impact the habitat of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR). The site hE been previously developed and consists of structures, herdscape, landscaping and din. The project is considered "in~ll" with development existing to the north, south, east and west. There is no potential for the change in the diversity and number (reduction) of the species, or in producing a barrier to the migration of Stephem Kangaroo Rat as well as the deterioration of its habitat exists within the project area. SKR Mitigation Fees are not required for the development of parcels used by local governmental entities (as per Section 10(e) of Ordinance No. 663). No other sensitive species have been identified upon the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The proposal will not result in the introduction of any new wildlife species into the area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Noise No. The proposal will not result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently developed with a more intensive use (bus storage and maintenance) which will be relocated as a result of this project. Noise impacts from the buses were considered significant but had been mitigated on the site. This is based upon information contained in a report prepared for this site by Med-Tox Associates, Inc. dated January 21, 1991. With the removal of the buses from the site, no significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b. Yes. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8- hour exposure. This sourco of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. 6.c. No. The proposal will not result in the exposure of people to severe vibrations. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. RASXSTAFFRFT~158PA93.pC 9/8/93 mf 27 Li~,ht and Glare Yes. The proposal will ultimately produce and result in light/glare as all development of this nature results new light sources. Potential light and glare impacts upon adjacent residences can be mitigated through the use of low height lighting devices (under 10 feet high). The project is located lower than the adjacent residences. In addition, all light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. No impacts are foreseen from light and glare since any future development on the site will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). Land Use 8.a. No. The proposal will not alter the present land use of the area, because the site is currently used for school/administration uses. The project as proposed is consistent with the Margarita Village Specific Plan (SP - 199). In addition, it is likely that the proposal will be consistent with the future General Plan land use designation for the site which identifies the site as Public/Institutional Facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. No. The proposal will not result in an alteration to the future planned land use of the site as described in the Margarita Village Specific Plan or the City's future General Plan. Reference response 8.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Natural Resources 9.a.b. Maybe. The proposal may result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource or in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s). Development of the site will result in an increase in the rate of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. Risk of Upset lO.a.b. No. The proposal will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions, since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, sterage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. lO.c. No. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Ponulation 11. No. The project will not result in altering the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of the area. The limited scale of the project will not result in the relocation of people. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:%$\STAFFRPT~158PAS3.PC 9j8193 rnf 28 Housino 12. No. Reference response 11. Projects of this nature do not cause people to relocate, and therefore, additional housing needs will not be created. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Transpor:ation/Circulation 13.a. No. The proposal will not result in the generation of substantial additional vehicular movemere. The relocatinn of the bus storage and maintenance facility will result in a less intensive use of the site. Ultimate buildout of the site will include additional warehouse facilities and office/administration uses. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan has already been established for this site and is currently being implemented. The TDM program is required under State Law and serves to mitigate any potential impacts to the traffic in the area as a result of development. No significant impacts are expected from development of the site. 13.b. Yes. The project will result in an increased demand for new parking. Currently, one hundred and seven (107) parking spaces exist on site. One hundred ninety-three (193) parking spaces will be required as a result of project build-out. The project as proposed will meet the amount of parking spaces required under Ordinance No. 348. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this projea. 13 .c. No. The proposal will not create impacts upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation. The site is located adjacent to a fully improved secondary street (Rancho Vista Road). A Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) route is available in the area where the project is located (the route goes past the intersection of Margarita and Rancho Vista Roads and the site is approximately 2500 feet from this intersection). In addition, a Transportation Demand Management (rDM) plan has already been established for this site and is currently being implemented. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.d. Yes. The proposal will result in alterations to present panems of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. The site is currently used for the storage and maintenance of buses. The project is a proposal to relocate the bus facility and expand warehousing activities and office/administration uses. This will logically alter the present circulation pattern. Since the proposal will result in a less intensive traffic impacts, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.e. No. The proposal will not result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic since none exists currently in the proximity of the site and none are proposed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.L Yes. The proposal will result in an increase In traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. The hazards will increase as the project develops due to increased activity on the site. These impacts are not seen as significant. Impacts have been mitigated to a level less than significant through the site design, which is consistent with City standards. RAS\STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC 9/8193 mf 29 Public Services 14.a.b. No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The additional buildings will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection, however, due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. 14.c. No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project is for school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.d. No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered parks or other recreational facilities. Existing facilities on site will service the need generated by the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e. Yes. The proposal will result in a need for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roeds is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. This is because the Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 14.f. No. The proposal will not have a substantial affect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Energy 15.a. No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial mounts of fuel or energy. As mentioned in responses 9.a. and 9.b. the proposal may result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource or the depletion of any nonrenewable resource. Development of the site will result in an increase in the rate of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for dally operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. 15.b. No. The project will not result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, nor will the project require the development of new sources of energy. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Utilities 16.a No. The proposal will not result in a need for new system or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. The project site is within proximity of existing facilities. The project is seen as an 'in-fill" project with existing uses to the north, south, east and west. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.b. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to communication system (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:XS\STAFFRPT~lSBPA93.PC 9/~/93 mf 3O 16.c. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to water systems. Reference response 3.h. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.d. No. The proposnl will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems. The project is located within Eastern Municipal Water District's 0EMWD) sanitary sewer service area. Based upon information contained in the General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (dated August 12, 1993) adequate facilities exist (and are proposed) which will adequately service the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.e. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to on-site storm water drainage systems. Since the project is considered "in-fill" and a large portion of the site has been previously developed, the proposal will utilize existing drainage systems. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.f. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.g. No. The proposal will not result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above. (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Human Health 17.a.b. No. The proposal will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The County of Riverside Health Services Agency has reviewed the project and its recommendations shall be included as conditions of approval for the project (as per County of Riverside Health Services Agency transmittat dated August 6, 1993, a copy of which is on file with the Planning Department). In addition, the proposal will expose not people to potential health hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Aesthetics 18.a. No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public. The project is considered in-fill, with development located to the north, south, east and west. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18.b. Maybe. The proposal may result in the creation Of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The projea proposes to locate buildings where there were previously trailers and vacant areas. Homes adjacent to the projea have views inw the site because the site is lower in elevation. Any potential impacts have been mitigated through the use of landscaping along the perimeter of the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18.c. Maybe. The proposal may result in detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area. Reference response 18.b. Any potential impacts have been mitigated to a level less than significant through the use of landscaping along the perimeter of the site. R:\SXSTAFFRP~158PA93.PC 9/8193 mf ~1 Recreation 19. No. The proposal will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. The site is currently being used for educational, bus maintenance and storage, warehousing and office/administrative uses. Recreational facilities exist on the site to accommodate the students, therefore additional recreational facilities above those provided on site will be needed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources No. The proposal will not result in the alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic site. Although both the City of Temecula Draft General Plan Environmental Impact Report (dated August 12, 1992) and the Southwest Area Community Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (adopted May, 1989) indicate that there is a possibility that paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic sites may exist on the subject project site, the Final Environmental Impact Report for Margarita Village indicates that no historic sites and only one archeological site were found within the Specific Plan area. The subject project site is not in proximity to the archeclogical site. In addition, the site has been previously Faded and the potential for any significant resources to be located on this site is very low. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 20.b. No. The proposal will not result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object. Reference response 20.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. No "unique" ethnic cultural values exist on-site or in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 20.d. No. The proposal will not result in restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. None currently exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\S\STAFFRP'r~158PA93.PC 9~/93 mf 32 - IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNH~'ICANCE Does the project have the pomntial 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._qo 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 funIre.) 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.'? DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GA_ME "DE MINIIVIUS" lIVEPACT FINDINGS Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife is defined 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" (Seaion 711.2, Fish and Game Code). X X R:',SXSTAFFRPT%lSBPA93.PC 9/~/93 mf 33 ENVIRONMENTAL D~:rffdVIINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed projea 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. X I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effea on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Matthew Fagan. Assistant Planner Name and Title R:~,S',STAFFI~'r~158PA93.PC 9/~193 mf :34- ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS CITY OF TEMECULA N CASE NO.: EXHIBIT: A P.C. DATE: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0158, AMENDMENT NO. 1 VICINITY MAP SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 R:%S\STAFFRPT%158PA93,PC 8130/93 mf CITY OF TEMECULA SITE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN - EXHIBIT B DESIGNATION: PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES __SITE I I/ - II ~ , ,.\ ZONING - EXHIBIT C DESIGNATION: S-P 199 - MARGARITA VILLAGE ""'~SE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0158, AMENDMENT NO. 1 · DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 R:\S',STAFFRPT%158PA93.PC 8/30/93 mf CITY OF TEMECULA / CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0158, AMENDMENT NO. 1 EXHIBIT: D SITE PLAN P.C. DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1993 R:~S~STAFFRPT~158PA93.PC 8~30~93 mf A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 4 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT L~- I I ER SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 TEMECULA VALLEY Unified School District SUPERINTENDENT Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D. BOARD OF EDUCATION Dr. David Eunch Bad3ara Tooker September 28, 1993 Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner City of Temecuta 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Planning Application No. 93-0158 District Administration Center, Warehouse Proposal Dear Mr. Fagan: I am enclosing a sample of our letter which was sent to the mailing list of neighbors. In the letter we defined those hazardous materials which are stored in our warehouse: paint thinner, rubber cement, and bleach. These substances were identified by our Safety Officer who oversees all Material Safety Data Sheets on stored products. Funding for this project is from bonding of the school district pass through increment of the City Redevelopment Agency. The facilities that the District is considering for the District Administration Center would include offices, printing services, warehouse and book depository activities, teacher and staff training rooms. Current warehouse activities are in a facility that is inadequate. This limited space makes it necessary to move pallets outdoors during the day, then back in again at night. We are also using temporary storage containers for warehouse items. Both these activities make it necessary to use the forklift outside the warehouse, The new warehouse would allow us to store inside. The forklift activity would only be from the loading dock to inside the warehouse, thus reducing significantly the outdoor activity by the forklift. The other machinery currently stored and serviced at the site would transfer to the new Transportation and Maintenance Facility upon approval and construction of that project. 31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula. CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661 Planning Application No. 93-0158 Page 2 Please refer to the enclosed letter for our response to the other public questions. Respectfully, TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Lettie Boggs Coordinator of Facilities Planning cc: Dave Gallaher, TVUSD m TEMECULA VALLEY Unified School District September 27, 1993 Re: District Administration Center Warehouse Proposal Dear Neighbor: At the Planning Commission meeting on September 20, 1993, the School District asked the Commission to postpone a final decision regarding this proposal until its next meeting because of the confusion over the date. This would allow anyone who had made plans to attend, but couldn't because of the date, a chance to hear the proposal and make their comments to the Commission. The Planning Commission is now scheduled to hear this item at their regular meeting, October 4, 1993, meeting at Vail Elementary School at 6:00 P.M. Several questions were raised at the meeting last Monday, some of which the City planning staff will address, and some which I will respond to in this letter. We hope that this will help you better understand the project. The project timeline, pending Planning Commission approval in October, would be to begin construction of the warehouse in January 1994 with completion in mid-April, The removal of the Maintenance and Bus functions will not occur until completion of a separate project at a different location. That project is currently projected to be complete in August of 1994. If all approvals go smoothly and the August date can be met, all Maintenance and Transportation functions would be moved to the new location at that time. District Administration Center Warehouse Proposal Page 2 The proposal before the Commission at the October 4 meeting is for the construction of a warehouse at the District Administration Center, it also includes significant additional landscaping, including 113 trees. The existing transportation maintenance building will be converted to additional warehouse for items that are currently stored in container bins. We will then be able to remove all the storage container bins from the site. The fuel tank and fuel island will be removed from the current location when bus operations move to their new site. There will be no fuel storage or dispensing at the Administration Center after the new Maintenance and Transportation project is completed. Both the Warehouse project and the Maintenance & Transportation project are being funded from City Redevelopment proceeds. They will not affect your General Obligation Bond school tax assessment on your property tax bill in any way. The school district warehouse will not be in operation prior to 7:00 A.M. and will have very light traffic before 9:00 A.M. The warehouse does not store any hazardous materials other than paint thinner, rubber cement, and bleach. These items are only stored unopened in their original packaging. The warehouse will be used to store furniture and supplies needed for the operation of the schools in our community. We have plans for the new project available in our Facilities Office for anyone who would like to see what we are proposing. We invite you to come see the plans and ask any questions that you have regarding this proposal. You may also call me at 695-7340. Respectfully, TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Lettie Boggs, Coordinator of Facilities Planning cc: Mr. Matthew Fagan, City of Temecula Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D., Superintendent, TVUSD John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services, TVUSD