HomeMy WebLinkAbout050294 PC AgendaAGENDA
TF.,MECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2, 1994, 6:00 PM
VAHJ HJEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mira Loma Drive
Temeeuh, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ford
ROLL CALl',:
Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, 5alyor 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 ere limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to
the Comminsioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be
filled out and ~ed with the Comminsion 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 ~ed 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. Director's Hearing Update
Case No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Plnnner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA94-0035
Larry Gabde
26672 Ynez Road CYnez Car Care Center)
A one hundred fii~y (150) square foot, forty (40) foot high fleeway
oriented sign and a .eighty-six (86) square foot, fifteen (15) foot high
monument sign on Ynez Road.
Statutory Exemption per Article 18, Section 15270 of the California
Environmental Quality Act
Matthew Fagan
Deny
Case No.:
Applicant:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
PresenWr:
Recommendation:
Planning Commission Location Change
Planning Depa~h,,ent
To inform the Planning Commission of the Meeting Location
from Vail Elementary to Rancho California Water District.
N/A
Gary Thornhill
Recommend Approval to City Council
change
R:XWIMBERVG~cq,,ANCOMM~AGENDAS~5-2-94 4/28/94 vgw I
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5. Case No:
Applicant.~
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Recommendation:
Change of Zone No. 5570
Johnnon + Johnson
Northeast comer of Ynez and Rancho Vista Road
Change of zone request for three parcels from R-A-5 (Residential
Agricultural-5 acre minimum parCeA size) tO R-3 (General Residential),
and C--O (Commercial Offico).
StatutOry Exemption per Article 18, Section 15270 of the California
Environme4~tal Quality A~t Guidelines.
Matthew Fagan
Recommend Denial tO City Council
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5
Church of Christ
Southeast comer of Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane
A church and classrooms built in two (2) phases. The first phase will
consist of a 3,600 square foot Church/Assembly Building and two (2)
1,440 Classroom Buildings, tOtalling approximately 6,480 square feet.
The second phase will be a 1,440 square foot expansion tO the
Church/Assembly Building and the addition of 1,440 square feet of
classroom area. Total square footage at buildout is 9,360. The proposal
is also for a reduction in the number of parking spaces required under
Ordinance No. 348 from 130 tO 120.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Matthew Fagan
Approval
Planning Application No. PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit
Chili Promotions, Inc. (dba Mexicali Rose Cantina)
28822 Front Street/202 & 203
Revise previously adopted conditions of approval tO expand hours of
operation on Sundays and tO allow the admittance of minors intO the
club.
Exempt per .Section 15061 of the California Environmental Quality Act
Craig Ruiz
Approve
Planning Application No. PA93-0191, Skateboard Ordinance
City of Temecula
City Wide
Recommend adoption of an ordinance which would prohibit
skateboarding, rollerblading and simil3x activities in designated areas of
the City.
Exempt per Section 15061 of the California Environmental Quality Act
Craig Ruiz
Recommend Approval tO City Council
R:%W1MBERVG~;I, ANCOMM~AGENDAS%6-2-94 4/28/94 vgw 2
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Recommendation:
PA93-0157 and PA94-iMM}2
Temecnia Valley Unified School District
North of Winchester Road and west of the extension of Roripaugh Road
A request to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction
and operation of a transportation, admlni~tration and maintenance facility
for the Tcmecula Valley Unified School District. The facility includes
storage of school buses and maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands,
bus repair bays, repair shops for maintenance operations and
administrative offices.
Certification of Environmental Impact Report. Unmitigated Significant
Impacts are: Seismic Safety, Clim3te and Air Quality, Hydrology and
Land Use
Saled Naaseh
Recommend Approval to City Council
Next meeting: May 23, 1994, 6:00 p.m., Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula,
California.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
R:%WIMBERVG%PLANCOMM~AGENDA8%5-2-94 4/28/94 vgw 3
ITEM #2
IVlEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SET:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
May 2, 1994
Director's Hearing Case Update
A Revised Permit (Planning Application No. PA94-0025) was approved on April 14, 1994 at
the Planning Director's Hearing.
Attachment
1. Planning Director's Hearing Action Agenda, April 14, 1994 - Blue Page 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S ]:[F, ARING ACTION AGENDA
APRIL 14, 1994
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S IIEARING
REGULAR ~F, TING
APItII, 14, 1994 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Debbie Ubn0ske, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COM1M~,NTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. ff you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item no. it listed on
the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be fried out and fried with the
Senior Planner.
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 fried with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. Them is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speRkers.
PUBLIC FIF~ARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA94-0025, Revised Permit
Embassy Suites Hotel
29345 Rancho California Road
A 3,000 square foot addition to an existing hotel
Exempt per Section 15301 of the California
Environmental Quality Act
Craig Ruiz
Approve
APeROVED
R:\DIRHEAR~AGENDA'~4~14-94.AGN 4/20/94 klb 1
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2, 1994
Planning Application No. 94-0035
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
ADOPT Resolution No. 94- denying Planning
Application No. 94-0035 for a monument sign on Ynez
Road and a forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report
J. Larry Gabele
America West Signs & Neon
A one hundred fifty (150) square foot, forty (40) foot high
freeway oriented sign and a eighty-six (86) square foot,
fifteen (15) foot high monument sign on Ynez Road
26672 Ynez Road (Ynez Car Care Center)
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
North: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
South: C-P (General Commercial)
East: C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
West: Interstate 15
Not requested
SC (Service Commercial)
Multi-Tenant Automotive Car Care Center
North: Toyota of Temecula
South: Norm Reeves Chrysler/Plymouth
East: Retail Commercial
West: Interstate 15
R:\STAFFRPT\35PA94.PC 4/28/94
PROJECT STATISTICS
Freeway Oriented Sian
Height: Forty (40) feet
Area of Sign: One hundred fifty (150) square feet
Number of Tenants on Sign: Six (6)
Monument Sion
Height: Fifteen (15) feet
Area of Sign: Eighty-six (86) square feet
Number of Tenants on Sign: Fourteen (14)
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA94-0035 was submitted to the Planning Department on April 20,
1994. A flag test was conducted on April 20, 1994. Planning Application No. 94-0035 was
deemed complete on April 25, 1994.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Ynez Car Care Center currently consists of two multi-tenant buildings on three parcels.
One parcel remains vacant at this time. The applicant proposes two free-standing signs, each
one on a separate parcel. One is a one hundred fifty (150) square foot, forty (40) foot high
freeway oriented sign and the second is an eighty-four (84) square foot, fifteen (15) foot high
monument sign on Ynez Road for the Ynez Car Care Center. The freeway oriented sign
identifies the center as well as six of the tenants. The applicant has submitted two (2)
different designs for the monument sign along Ynez Road. Both signs are approximately
fifteen feet in height. They identify the center, and have space for identification of fourteen
tenants.
ANALYSIS
Provisions Contained in Ordinance No. 348
Section 19.1 of Ordinance No. 348 states: "It is the intent of this ordinance to provide
standards to safeguard life, health and property and the public welfare, to provide the means
for adequate identification of businesses and other sign uses by prohibiting, regulating and
controlling the design, location, and maintenance of signs," It is with this authority that the
Planning Department reviews sign submittals.
Section 19.4 also contains criteria for free-standing signs located within 660 feet of the
nearest edge of a freeway right-of way line and free-standing signs for "all other locations."
The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed 45 feet in height and the maximum surface
area shall not exceed 150 square feet if it is within the 660 feet of the nearest edge of a
freeway right-of way line. The maximum height of the sign shall not exceed 20 feet in height
and a maximum surface area of 50 square feet for those signs located in all other areas. The
proposed freeway-oriented sign is within 660 feet of Interstate 15.
R:\STAFFRPT\35PA94.pC 4/28/94 sdl 2
Precedent Established Alono Ynez Road
Although Ordinance No. 348 provides for signs up to a maximum of twenty (20), Staff has
been attempting to keep the height of monument signs around six (6) feet in height, This has
come through the direction and support of the Planning Commission and City Council. Signs
that have been approved by the City of Temecula along the portion of Ynez Road where the
proposed sign is to be located have been limited to approximately six (6) feet in height. Since
the City's incorporation, three auto dealership signs have been approved (Nissan, Toyota and
Chevrolet). In all three cases, the signs are approximately six feet in height. Most recently,
Norm Reeves Auto Group applied for a twenty (20) foot high sign. This item was taken before
the Planning Commission; whereby, the Commission denied the application based upon the
height of the sign and the precedent that had been created in the area. After the Planning
Commission meeting, the applicant met with the Planning Director and Staff. A site visit was
conducted and based upon the analysis of all of the facts, a slight increase in height was
granted. This variation from the six foot high sign was allowed because visibility at that site
was blocked by the tall power line poles. Staff has made the applicant aware of the six (6)
foot high policy on a number of occasions. To allow each existing business along with future
businesses, to erect fifteen (15) foot high signs along Ynez Road would result in visual blight,
unless there in Staff's opinion are unusual or exceptional circumstances applicable to the
project. In this case, it is Staff's opinion that there are no circumstances to warrant an
increase in the height of the sign to fifteen feet.
Monument Sion on Ynez Road
The monument sign that is proposed along Ynez Road is approximately fifteen (15) feet in
height and eight-four (84) square feet in area, with space for fourteen tenants to be listed on
the sign. The maximum area permitted under Ordinance No. 348 is fifty (50) square feet. In
addition, as discussed above, precedent has already been established along this section of
Ynez Road. The sign as proposed exceeds the height of other signs within the area. Although
the sign is for a multi-tenant center, the precedent has also already been established for the
number of tenants within a center that identify themselves on the free-standing center sign.
Some of these examples exist at Palm Plaza, Tower Plaza and Palomar Village. The maximum
number of tenants listed on these signs is approximately four (4). The applicant proposes to
list fourteen (14) tenants on the sign.
Freeway Oriented Sian
The maximum height allowed for a freestanding sign located within 660 feet of the nearest
edge of a freeway right-of-way shall not exceed forty-five (45) feet and the maximum surface
area of a sign shall not exceed one hundred fifty (150) square feet. The proposed sign is
approximately one hundred fifty (150) square feet in area. A flag test is conducted in order
to ascertain the appropriate height of any freeway oriented signs. The position of the Planning
Department is to recommend heights to the Planning Commission that will provide the
maximum amount of identification at the lowest possible height. A flag test was conducted
for this sign on April 20, 1994. Staff observed the flag both northbound and southbound
along Interstate 15. The distance of 3/10 of a mile from the site was utilized as a standard
in order to allow people to transition from the fast lane to the lane closest to the exit ramp.
At this distance, the sign was clearly visible at forty (40) feet and forty-five (45) feet in height.
Trees obscured the sign at heights lower than this at this distance. Staff recommendedto the
applicant's representative that they consider contacting CALTRANS in order to trim the trees
R:\STAFFRPT~35PA94.PC 4/28/94 edl 3
to allow greater visibility at a lower height. Staff explained that the trees will continue to
grow, and will ultimately obscure the sign even if it was at the maximum height allowed under
Ordinance No. 348.
Travelling northbound on Interstate 15, within proximity to the site, the sign would be visible
at a height of twenty-five (25) feet. Because of the location of the site in relation to the
Winchester off-ramp, motorists would be able to transition from the fast lane to the exit ramp
safely. Proceeding southbound on Interstate 15, the sign would be obscured by trees in
proximity to the site. If the trees were trimmed, the sign would be more visible at a lower
height in this area. Topography does not pose a constraint on sign visibility at the site.
The forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign is not compatible with the scale of the buildings
that are located on the site. The maximum height of these buildings is approximately twenty-
three (23) feet, with tower elements approximately twenty-eight (28} feet. In addition, to
allow each existing business, along with future businesses, to erect forty (40) foot high free-
standing signs adjacent to Interstate 15 would result in visual blight.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Signage is a permitted use within the Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) zone provided a Plot
Plan is approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of Ordinance No. 348. The
project is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Specifically, the signs are not
consistent with the Goals contained in the Community Design Element of the Plan. Neither
free-standing sign provides design excellence in signage, nor do they preserve and enhance
the positive qualities of individual districts. Further, they do not contribute to a streetscape
system that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project is a Statutory exemption per Article 18, Section 15270 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This Exemption states: "CEQA does not apply
to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves."
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The applicant proposes two free-standing signs, each one on a separate parcel. One is a one
hundred fifty (150} square foot, forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign and the second is
an eighty-four (84) square foot, fifteen (15) foot high monument sign on Ynez Road for the
Ynez Car Care Center. Signs that have been approved by the City of Temecula along the
portion of Ynez Road where the proposed sign is to be located have been limited to
approximately six (6) feet in height. Travelling northbound on Interstate 15, the freeway
oriented sign would be visible at a height of twenty-five (25) feet. Proceeding southbound on
Interstate 15, the sign would be obscured by trees in proximity to the site. If the trees were
trimmed, the sign would be more visible at a lower height in this area. Topography does not
pose a constraint on sign visibility at the site. In addition, the project is not consistent with
the City's General Plan.
R:\STAFFRPT~35PA94.PC 4/28/94 edl 4
FINDINGS
The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Neither free-standing sign
provides design excellence in signage, nor do they preserve and enhance the positive
qualities of individual districts. Further, they do not contribute to a streetscape system
that provides cohesiveness and enhances community image.
The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare. To allow each existing business, along with future
businesses, to erect fifteen (15) foot high signs along Ynez Road and forty (40) foot
high free-standing signs adjacent to Interstate 15 would result in visual blight. To
approve projects that would result in visual blight would be contrary to the general
welfare of the community.
The project does not conform to the logical development of the land and is not
compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding
property. Based upon direction from the City Council and Planning Commission, Staff
has not approved any signs in this area along Ynez Road in excess of six feet with the
singular exception being Norm Reeves which was permitted at eight (8) feet due to site
visibility constraints. To approve a fifteen (15) foot free standing sign at this location
would not conform to the logical development of the land and would be inconsistent
with present and future logical development in the area. The forty (40) foot high
freeway oriented sign is not compatible with the scale of the buildings that are located
on the site. The maximum height of these buildings is approximately twenty-three (23)
feet, with tower elements approximately twenty-eight (28) feet.
Attachments:
PC Resolution No. 94-
Exhibits - Blue Page 9
- Blue Page 6
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. Site Plan
D. Elevations
El. Freeway Oriented Sign
E2. Monument Sign(s)
R:\$TAFFRPT\35PA94.PC 4/28/94 sdl 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRP'~35PA94,PC 4/28/94 edl 6
ATTACI-IMRNT N0. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
TITle. CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 94-0035 - A REQUEST FOR A FORTY
(40) FOOT HIGH, ONE HUNDI~ED FIFTY (IS0) SQUARE
FEET IN AREA F!~EEWAY ORw. NTED SIGN AND A
FIFTERN (15) FOOT HIGH, EIGHTY-FOUR (84) SQUARE
FEET IN AREA MONUMENT SIGN ALONG YNEZ ROAD
LOCATED AT 26672 YNEZ ROAD ~z CAR CARE
CENTER) AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBERS 921-720-008 921-720.010.
WItEREAS, Larry Gabele fried Planning Application No. 94-0035 in accordance with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WI~F. REAS, Planning Application No. 940035 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WFIEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 94-0035 on
May 2, 1994;
WHEREAS, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No.
94-0035;
NOW, TI~.REFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findin2s.
A. The Planning Commission in denying Planning Application No. 94-0035, makes
the foliowing findings, to wit:
1. The project is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Neither free-
standing sign provides design excellence in signage, nor do they preserve and enhance the
positive qualities of individual districts. Further, they do not contribute to a streetscape system
that provides cohesivehess and enhances community image.
2. The overall development of the land is not designed for the protection of
the public health, safety and general welfare. To allow each existing business, along with future
businesses, to erect fifteen (15) foot high signs along Ynez Road and forty (40) foot high free-
R:\STAFFRPT~35PA94.pC 4/28/94 sdl 7
standing signs adjacent to Interstate 15 would result in visual blight. To approve projects that
would result in visual blight would be contrary to the general weftare of the community.
3. The project does not conform to the logical development of the land and
is not compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
Based upon direction from the City Council and Planning Commission, Staff has not approved
any signs in this area along Ynez Road in excess of six feet with the singular exception being
Norm Reeves which was permitted at eight (8) feet due to site visibility constraints. To approve
a fifteen (15) foot free standing sign at this location would not conform to the logical
development of the land and would be inconsistent with present and future logical development
in the aw, a. The forty (40) foot high freeway oriented sign is not compatible with the scale of
the buildings that are located on the site. The maximum height of these buildings is
approximately twenty-three (23) feet, with tower elements approximately twenty-eight (28) feet.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. This project is a Statutory exemption per Article
18, Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. This Exemption
states: "CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves."
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I ItF, REBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of May,
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI411.1,
SECRETLY
R:\STAFFRPT~35PA94.PC 4/28/94 sdl ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRP'i~35PA94.PC 4/28194 edl 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035
EXHIBIT: A
;. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
VICINITY MAP
R:\FAGANM\REPORTS\35PA94.PC 4/22/94 mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
5P
BP
F
/x
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
SERVICE COMMERCIAL
,/
EXHIBIT C
ZONING DESIGNATION:
CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035
P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
R:\FAGANM\REPORTS\35PA94.PC 4/22/94 mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
· . MONUMENT SIGN
~ ~~1 L .,.-,- .,,,.;,...._,
!, !".s2 ','
,.:,. .......""T_ :; :J " , '-' ="',"-
~,,,,,.,,, o.,..z',~;.;,;'~''' ,:.,.,,
SIGN
CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035
EXHIBIT: D SITE PLAN
~ C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
R:\FAGANM\REpORTS\35PA94,PC 4~22/94 rnf
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035
EXHIBIT: E1 FREEWAY ORIENTED SIGN
P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
R:\STAFFRPT~35PA94..PC 4/28/94 sdl
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035
EXHIBIT: E2
"~. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
MONUMENT SIGN(S)
R:\$TAFFRPT~35PA94.PC 4/28/94
CITY OF TEMECULA
'rL"' ' d
:.-Z' "
CASE NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0035
EXHIBIT: E2
P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
MONUMENT SIGN(S)
R:\STAFFRPT\35PA94.pC 4/28/94 8dl
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commissioners
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
May 2, 1994
Planning Commission Meeting Location Change
A Resolution to change the location of the Planning Commission hearings has been placed on
the May 10, 1994 City Council agenda. This Resolution states the new location of the
hearing, at the Rancho California Water District's Board Room starting June 6, 1994.
R:\STAFFI~T~PCRESO.CHG 4128/94 vgw 1
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2, 1994
Change of Zone No. 5570
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
ADOPT Resolution No. 94 - _ recommending denial of
Change of Zone No. 5570 based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report
Johnson + Johnson
Johnson + Johnson
Change of zone request for three parcels from R-A-5
(Residential Agricultural, 5 acre minimum parcel size) to R-
3 (General Residential) and C-O (Commercial Office).
Northeast corner of Ynez and Rancho Vista Road
R-A-5 (Residential Agricultural, 5 acre minimum parcel
size)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Plan No. 180 (Rancho Highlands)
and R-3 (General Residential)
R-1 (One-Family Dwellings)
R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
Specific Plan No. 180 (Rancho Highlands)
R-3 (General Residential) and C-O (Commercial Office)
Medium Density Residential for Parcel 1 (APN 944-290-
015) and Parcel 2 (APN 944-290-017) and Professional
Office for Parcel 3 (APN 944-290-016)
VaCaRt
R:\STAFFRPT~SS70CZ.pC 4~28/94 klb
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Sales Information Center, Lake and Church
Vacant, Single-Family Residences
Apartments
Vacant, Apartments
PROJECT STATISTICS
Parcel No. 1: 11.4 acres
Parcel No. 2: 8.8 acres
Parcel No. 3: 8.0 acres
Total Area: 28.2 acres
BACKGROUND
Change of Zone No. 5570 was submitted to the Riverside County Planning Department on
August 18, 1989. The request at that time was for a Change of Zone for three contiguous
properties from R-A-5 (Residential Agricultural, 5 acre minimum parcel size) to C-PoS (Scenic
Highway Commercial). The case was transferred to the City of Temecula in May 1990. A
Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on March 12, 1992. The request
was changed on March 23, 1992 from R-A-5 to C-O (Commercial Office) on two of the
parcels and to R-3 (General Residential) on the third parcel. The applicant received comments
from the Planning Department and the application was again deemed incomplete because
several items needed to by submitted to Staff in order to continue processing the application.
The applicant requested that the application be put on hold on December 16, 1992, until the
General Plan was adopted. Upon adoption of the General Plan, Staff sent out two letters
providing direction to the applicant and establishing time frames for the applicant to contact
Staff (reference Attachment No. 3). The applicant was told in the letters that failure to
contact Staff would result in their application being scheduled for a public hearing with a
recommendation for denial without prejudice. Staff was never contacted by the applicant;
therefore, the item is now before the Planning Commission for their consideration.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Change of Zone No. 5570 is a request to change the zoning on three parcels from R-A-5
(Residential Agricultural, 5 acre minimum parcel size) to R-3 (General Residential) and C-O
(Commercial Office).
ANALYSIS
The project was deemed incomplete in a letter to the applicant dated March 23, 1992.
Outstanding issues included a focused traffic analysis, a letter to indicate the project's
placement within CFD 88-12 and the assessment the applicant had been paying to the
assessment district and revised exhibits for the change of zone. These items were never
submitted to Staff.
This project was put on hold at the request of the applicant pending adoption of the City's
General Plan. Upon the adoption of the Plan, the applicant was sent correspondence providing
direction to take action on the dormant case. The change of zone request is consistent with
the General Plan for Parcel No. 1 (R-3: General Residential) and Parcel No. 3 (C-O:
Commercial-Office). The change of zone request for Parcel 2 (C-O: Commercial Office) is not
R:\STAFFRPT\5570CZ.pC 4/28/94 kJb 2
consistent with the General Plan. It is because of this inconsistency with the City's General
Plan that the project is before the Planning Commission with a recommendation of denial.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Existing zoning on the site is R-A-5 (Residential Agricultural, 5 acre minimum parcel size). The
General Plan designation for the site is Medium Density Residential for Parcels 1 (APN 944-
290-015)and 2 (APN 944-290-017),and Professional Office for Parcel 3 (APN 944-290-016).
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project is a Statutory exemption per Article 18, Section 15270 of the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. This Exemption states: "CEQA does not apply to
projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves."
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project was deemed incomplete in a letter to the applicant dated March 23, 1992. The
requested items were never submitted to Staff. The project is a request for a redesignation
of the zoning on three parcels; however, Parcel 2 (C-O: Commercial Office) is.not consistent
with the General Plan Land Use designation of Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units
per acre). Staff cannot make the necessary finding that the project is consistent with the
City's General Plan.
FINDINGS
The land use or action is not consistent with the City's General Plan. The change of
zone request for Parcel 2 is not consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan
Land Use Designation for this Parcel is Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units
per acre). The applicant is requesting that the zoning for this Parcel be Commercial
Office.
Attachments:
m
PC Resolution - Blue Page 4
Exhibits - Blue Page 7
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. Site Plan
Letters to applicant - Blue Page 8
R:\STAFFRPT~5570CZ.PC 4/28/94 klb 3
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT~5570CZ.PC 4/28/94 klb 4
A'rrACHI~ENT NO. I
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF TIff. PLANNING COMMESION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. $~70 - A REQUEST TO CHANGE
~ ZONE ON THllEE PARCRI ,~ PROM R-A-5
(RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL 5 ACRE MINIMUM
PARCRI. SIZE) TO C-O (COMlVfERCIAL OFFICE) ON
PARCRI-S NO, 1 AND 3 AND PROM R-A-S to R-3
(GENERAL RESIDENTIAL) ON PARCEL NO. 2 ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT TF[E. NORTn~.ASTERN
CORNER OR RANClIO VISTA AND YNR. Z ROADS AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 944-290-015,
944-290-016, AND 944-290-017
WHEREAS, Johnson + Johnson fried Change of Zone No. 5570 in accordance with the
City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WITRREAS, Change of Zone No. 5570 was processed in the time and manner prescribed
by State and local law;
WItF. REAS, the Planning Commission considered Change of Zone No. 5570 on May
2, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons
had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Change of Zone No. 5570;
NOW, TFFEREFORE, T~F.. PLANNING COMMISSION OF T!tg CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1, That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. FindingS.
A. The Planning Commission in recommending the City Council deny Change of
Zone No. 5570, makes the foliowing fmding, to wit:
1. The land use or action is not consistent with the City's General Plan. The
project is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation for the site.
R:XSTAFFRPT\5570CZ.PC 4/28194 klb 5
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. This project is a Statutory exemption per Article
18, Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. This Exemption
states: "CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves."
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 2nd day of May, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I I~RREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of May,
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI4rI ~I,
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRPT\5570CZ.PC 4/28/94 klb 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT\5570CZ.PC 4/28/94 klb 7
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: A
EXHIBIT: CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5570
' ":,. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRPT~5570CZ.PC 4/21/94 klb
EXHIBIT B
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
CITY OF TEMECULA
VISTA RD
LM ,~ L
LM
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
r~ ~.. ' ''~
EXHIBIT C
ZONING DESIGNATION: R-A5 (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL - 5 ACRE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE)
CASE NO.: CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5570
P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994 ~.
R:\STAFFRPT\5570CZ.PC 4/21/94 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Lb I I ERS TO APPLICANT
R:\STAFFRP"r~5570CZ.PC 4/28/94 klb 8
of Temecula
"""'~~~'j~~'i slness Park Drive · Temecula, California 92590
March 14, 1994
(909) 694-1989 · FAX (909( 694-1999
Mr. Dean Allen
3rohnson + Johnson
27540 Ynez Road, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92591
SUBTECT:
Status of Change of Zone No. 5570 - located on the northeast comer of Ynez
and Rancho Vista Roads
Dear Mr. Allen:
Correspondence sent to you on December 15, 1993, and February 22, 1994 (see attached)
requested that you contact Staff to provide a status of your project. This same
correspondence informed you that failure to contact Staff would result in your project being
scheduled for a public hearing with a recommendation of denial without prejudice. The
above referenced project has been placed on the April 4, 1994 Planning Commission
Agerids.
If you have any questions regarding this notLfication, please contact me at (909) 694-6400.
ly,
cc: Ray Casey, Department of Public Works
of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive · Temecula, California 92590
.,1_9,
:February 22, 1994
J909} 6944989 · FAX (909) 694-1999
Mr. Dean Allen
Johnson + Johnson
27540 Ynez Road, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92591
SUBJECT:
Status of Change of Zone No. 5570 - located on the northeast comer of Ynez and
Rancho Vista Roads
Dear Mr. Allen:
Titis letter shall serve as a follow-up to the letter dated December 15, 1993. That letter
provided direction relative to the above referenced project. planning Staff cannot support your
request for a change of zone. Staff is unable to make a finding that the change of zone request
is consistent with the City's General Plan. The following are options which axe available to you
at the current time:
You may provide Staff with a written request to withdraw the change of zone request and
be entitled to a partial refund of fees paid for the processing of the application.
You may provide Staff with a written request to modify your change of zone request,
making it consistent with the General Plan. Staff will continue processing the change of
zone request at that time.
You may provide Staff with a written request to proceed with the processing with the
change of zone application without modifying your request. Staff's recommendation for
the project to the Planning Commission will be to deny the project.
If Staff does not receive any correspondence from you within ten (10) calendar days from the
date of this letter, the case will be scheduled for a public hearing with a recommendation of
denial without prejudice.
l~age 2
Mr. Allen
CZ 5570
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (909) 694-6400.
cc: Ray Casey, Depa~h~ent of Public Works
City of Temecula
"'~;~'~j~~~s~ness Park Drive · Temecula, California 92590
December 15, 1993
1909} 694-1989 · FAX 1909) 694-,
Mr. Dean Allen
Johnson + Johnson
27540 Ynez Road, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92591
SUBJECT:
Status of Change of Zone No. 5570 - located on the northeast comer of Ynez and
Rancho Vista Roads
Deax Mr. Allen:
This letter shall serve m provide direction relative to the above referenced project. The
Temecula City Council adopted the City's General Plan on November 9, 1993. A Land Use
Plan was appmved that placed a land use designation on each parcel of land within the City.
The I_and Use designation for Parcel 1 (A.P.N. 944-290-015) is Medium Density Residential,
Parcel 2 (A.P.N. 944-290-017) is Medium Density Residential and Parcel 3 (A.P.N. 944-290-
016) is Professional Office. Your change of zone request is General Residential for Parcel 1,
Commercial Office for Parcel 2 and Commercial-Offwe for Parcel 3. The change of zone
request for Parcel 2 is not consistent with the Land Use Plan. Therefore, Planning Staff cannot
support your request for a change of zone. Staff is unable to make a finding that the change of
zone request is consistent with the City's General Plan. The following are options which axe
available to you at the current time:
You may provide Staff with a written request to withdraw the change of zone request and
be entitled to a partial refund of fees paid for the processing of the application.
You may provide Staff with a written request to modify your change of zone request,
making it consistent with the General Plan. Staff will continue processing the change of
zone request at that time.
You may provide Staff with a written request to proceed with the processing wkh the
change of zone application without modifying your request. Staff' s recommendation for
the project to the Planning Commission will be to deny the project.
If Staff does not receive any correspondence from you within ten (10) calendar days from the
date of this letter, the case will be scheduled for a public hearing with a recommendation of
denial without prejudice.
Page 2
Mr. Allen
CZ 5570
If you have any questions or comments, please call me at (909) 694-6400.
Sincerely,
cc: Ray Casey, Depaxtment of Public Works
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2, 1994
Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Public Use Permit No.
6, Amendment No. 5; and
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
ADOPT Resolution No. 94- Approving Public Use
Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5, based upon the Analysis
and Findings contained in the Staff Report.
Church of Christ, Rancho California
Markham and Associates
A church and classrooms built in two (2) phases. The proposal
also includes a request for a reduction in the number of parking
spaces required under Ordinance No. 348
Southeast corner of Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane
R-R 2 '~ - Rural Residential, 2 '~ acre minimum lot size
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-R 2~ - Rural Residential - 2'~ acre minimum lot
size
R-R 2 ~ - Rural Residential - 2 ~ acre minimum lot
size
R-R 2~ - Rural Residential - 2~,~ acre minimum lot
size
R-R 2~ - Rural Residential - 2~ acre minimum lot
size
Not requested
Very Low Density Residential (.2 - .4 dwelling units per acre
maximum)
R:\STAFFRPT~BPUP.PC 4/28/94 klb
EXISTING LAND-USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-Family Residence
Single-Family Residence
Single-Family Residence
Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area: 5.0 acres
Building Area:
Phase 1:
Phase 2:
Total:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Phase One:
Phase Two:
Handicap:
Bus:
6,480 square feet
2,880 square feet
9,360 square feet
35,600 square feet
42,550 square feet
130 spaces
120 spaces
81 parking spaces
39 parking spaces
3 spaces
None
BACKGROUND
Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5 was formally submitted to the Planning
Department on July 10, 1992. Four (4) Development Review Committee (DRC) meetings were
held for this project: August 6, 1992; September 17, 1992; April 29, 1993; and October 21,
1993. Staff also had several meetings with the representative for this project. Public Use
Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5 was deemed complete on March 28, 1994.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposal for a church and classroom facilities to be constructed in two (2)
phases and a reduction in the number of parking spaces required under Ordinance No. 348
from 130 to 120.
ANALYSIS
Site Desion
The design that is before the Planning Commission is the third one that has been proposed by
the applicant. The first design placed the majority of the parking in the front of the site, with
the buildings placed at the toe of the manufactured slope. The drainage course that traverses
the site was proposed to be channelled under the parking lot through two large drainage pipes.
Staff's concerns with this design centered on how the project related to the street and its
relationship with surrounding residences. A second design was submitted that included an
open drainage channel in the front of the site. The channel included 3:1 slopes that would be
R:~STAFFRPT~6PUP.pC 4/28/94 klb 2
planted for irrigation control and have rip-rap dispersed at locations to dissipate the flow of
the waters. Because of the location of the channel, parking was relocated to the top of the
existing slope. Staff was not supportive of this design for aesthetic reasons as well as
because of the potential impacts to adjacent neighbors from the parking lot at the top of the
slope.
The City's General Plan was progressing throughout the time that this project was going
through revisions. The applicant was made aware of this fact and submitted a third design
that Staff felt was more consistent with the goals and policies contained within the General
Plan. The buildings are moved closer to the street in the third design. The parking is located
around the building and not directly adjacent to the street.
Area Comoatibilitv
Single-family residences exist to the north, south and east of the project site. The proposed
site is lower than development to the south, east and west. Staff has included a condition of
approval to minimize lighting impacts to adjacent residences. Light Standards, including
parking lot light standards will be required to be a maximum of four (4) feet in height. In
addition, all lights will be required to be turned off at 11 p.m. Modifications to both of these
requirements will be considered by Staff if it is demonstrated that other types of lighting and
extended hours of lighting are necessary for security reasons.
Drainaoe
As mentioned above, a drainage course traverses the front portion of the site. The applicant
proposes to channel the drainage through two (2) fifty-four (54) inch reinforced concrete
pipes. The Department of Public Works has determined that the pipes are adequately sized
to convey the drainage through the site during a one hundred (100) year event. Staff
requested that the applicant obtain a drainage easement from the property owner to the north
prior to this item being scheduled for a Planning Commission hearing. This would assure that
all impacts from drainage from the project could be addressed at the Planning stage. The
applicant has not obtained this easement.
Landscaoe Plans
Landscape plans were included in the original submittal for the project. Upon the completion
of the third (and final) design for the project Staff requested that the landscape plans be
revised to reflect the current proposal. The applicant has chosen not to submit revised plans.
Traffic Analysis
The traffic analysis dated July 28; 1992, assumes sixty-five (65) percent of the trip
distribution will travel northerly along Calle Girasol to Nicolas Road. This route is unimproved
and this project is not proposing any improvements. If this route becomes impassable, one
hundred (100) percent of the traffic generated from the church would travel southerly along
Calle Girasol to Riverton Lane and Calle Medusa. Although staff was concerned about the
distribution of traffic through the residential area, the traffic impacts of this project at build out
would be 3.25 percent, analyzed per current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts. The existing
stop signs provide adequate traffic control and the impacts of the proposed project should not
warrant additional traffic control measures.
R:\STAFFRPI~6PUP,PC 4/28/94 klb 3
Parkina Reduction
The applicant has provided a parking needs analysis for each phase of development. Phase
One will require eight-one (81) parking spaces. The applicant proposes to install one hundred
and nine (109) parking spaces in Phase One, with the remainder being installed during the
Phase Two. They chose this number of spaces because it would be less costly to install them
in this manner. Ultimate buildout of the site would require 130 parking spaces under the
requirements of Ordinance No. 348. The applicant has stated in the parking needs analysis
that the church and classrooms will be used simultaneously. Parking needs for maximum use
of the site (Sunday) are determined as follows: Assembly (111 spaces) and Sunday School
(18 spaces), for a total of 129 spaces. One hundred twenty (120) parking spaces are
provided on site.
Architecture
The applicant has chosen to use modular buildings for the project. The main color for the
buildings is on off-white, with slate blue used for the trim and trellis. The roof is wood shake
shingles. Staff had concerns regarding the facades that would be visible from the street and
from adjacent residences. As depicted on the rendering, the front of the assembly building
has been enhanced with a trellis and an awning. Staff recommended that the awning be
removed because it is too large and is not within the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. Staff requested elevations for all of the structures. The applicant has chosen
not to submit the requested elevations.
Project Phasina
The first phase will consist of a 3,600 square foot church/assembly building and two (2)
1,440 classroom buildings, totalling approximately 6,480 square feet. The second phase will
be a 1,440 square foot expansion to the church/assembly building and the addition of 1,440
square feet of classroom area. Total square footage at buildout is 9,360.
Noise
Noise in the area is anticipated to increase as a result of this project. However, noise impacts
will be minimal because the project site is lower than the adjacent residences. The church
component is proposed to be used on Sunday, with the classrooms being used during
weekdays. The courtyard is internalized; therefore, potential noise impacts will be reduced
by shielding created by the buildings.
County of Riverside Health Deoartment Transmittal
The County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health has expressed concerns
regarding notes on the site plan indicating that subsurface sewage disposal from the project
would exceed State Standards. Their transmittal dated April 11, 1994, is included as a
condition of approval (reference Attachment No. 2). In this transmittal they state: "...[they]
will not permit clearance for a subsurface sewage disposal unless a waiver is granted by the
[California Regional Water Quality Control Board] for this project." They further state:
"Connection to sanitary sewer must be accomplished as indicated in Eastern Municipal Water
District's will-serve letter dated 12-14-94."
R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klt~ 4
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Existing zoning for the site is R-R 2 ~ (Rural Residential, 2 ~ acre minimum lot size). Churches
are permitted in any zone provided that a public use permit is granted pursuant to the
provisions of Section 18.29 of Ordinance No. 348. The General Plan land use designation for
the site is Very Low Density Residential (.2 - .4 dwelling units per acre maximum). The
General Plan states: "Additional public and institutional uses, including churches and daycare
facilities, 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. The project as
proposed is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and the General Plan.
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 effect on the environment, these effects are not 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 should be adopted.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is a proposal for a church and classroom facilities to be constructed in two (2)
phases and a reduction in the number of parking spaces required under Ordinance No. 348
from 130 to 120. The project as proposed is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and the
General Plan. An Initial Study conducted for the project determined that although the
proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not
considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and
in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. Several items (landscape plans, drainage
easements, building elevations/architecture) could not be resolved at the planning stage.
Conditions of approval have been added to the project to assure that they are addressed prior
to permit issuance (grading, building and occupancy).
FINDINGS
The land use or action proposed is consistent with the General Plan. The land use
designation for the site is identified in the General Plan as Very Low Density Residential
(.2 - .4 dwelling units per acre maximum). The General Plan states: "Additional public
and institutional uses, including churches and daycare facilities, may be developed in
the residential land use designations under the procedures established in the
Development Code." Until the Development Code is adopted, the provisions contained
in Ordinance No. 348 are utilized. Churches are permitted in any zone under Ordinance
No. 348 provided that a public use permit is granted.
The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local
ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section
65360, Section 18.29 (Public Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348.
R:~STAFFRPT\6PUP,PC 4/28/94 klb 6
The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community. In addition, the proposed proiect will not have a significant impact on
the environment. Mitigation measures have been included in the Conditions of
Approval that will reduce any impacts to a level less than significant.
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, because the proposed
planning application (public use permit), as conditioned, complies with the standards
contained within the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348.
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 (Calle Girasol).
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project.
Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated
with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 7
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11
Initial Study - Blue Page 22
Exhibits - Blue Page 40
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan
C. Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Rendering
F. Floor Plans
Executive Summary of Focused Traffic Analysis - Blue Page 41
R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb 6
ATFACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT~6PUp,pC 4/28/94 klb 7
ATTACtIMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THY~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6,
AMI*.NDMI~:NT NO. 5 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A 5,040
SQUARE FOOT CHURCH AND 4,320 SQUARE FEET OF
CLASSROOMS LOCATED ON T!tt, SOUTn~.~,ST CORNER OF
CALLE GIRASOL AND TOMMY LANE AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-500004
WttF~REAS, The Church of Christ fried Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5
in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WIt~.REAS, Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5. was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WH~.REAS, the Planning Commission considered Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment
No. 5 on May 2, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WItEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, ff any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5;
NOW, TItE~-~ORE, ~ PLANNING COMMtqSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
1. The land use or action proposed is consistent with the General Plan. The land
use designation for the site is identified in the General Plan as Very Low Density Residential
(.2 - .4 dwelling units per acre maximum). The General Plan states: "Additional public and
institutional uses, including churches and daycare facilities, may be developed in the residential
land use designations under the procedures established in the Development Code." Until the
Development Code is adopted, the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348 are utiliTed.
Churches are permitted in any zone under Ordinance No. 348 provided that a public use permit
is granted.
R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC 4/211/94 klb 8
2. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and
local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Cede Section
65360, Section 18.29 (Public Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348.
3. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general
welfare of the community. In addition, the proposed project will not have a significant impact
on the environment. Mitigation measures have been included in the Conditions of Approval that
wffi reduce any impacts to a level less than significant.
4. 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, because the proposed planning
application (public use permit), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within the
City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348.
5. 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
(Calle Girtsol).
6. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not
in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project.
7. Said fmdings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
A. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Public Use Permit No. 6,
Amendment No. 5, as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Section 3. 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 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5 for the operation and construction of a
church and classrooms in two (2) phases. The first phase will consist of a 3,600 square foot
Church/Assembly Building and two (2) 1,440 Classroom Buildings, totalling approximately
6,480 square feet. The second phase will be a 1,440 square foot expansion to the
Church/Assembly Building and the addition of 1,440 square feet of classroom area. Total
square footage at buildout is 9,360. The proposal is also for a reduction in the number of
parking spaces required under Ordinance No. 348 from 130 to 120, located at the southeast
comer of Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 914-500-004,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
R:\STAFFRP"~6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb 9
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CItAIRMAN
I ItF~RI~.Ry 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 2rid day of May,
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLAJ'q'NING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SF_,CRETARY
R:\STAI=FRPT~6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRP'T~6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb 11
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5
Project Description: A church and classrooms built in two (2) phases. The first phase
will consist of a 3,600 square foot Church/Assembly Building and two (2) 1,440
Classroom Buildings, totalling approximately 6,480 square feet. The second phase will
be a 1,440 square foot expansion to the Church/Assembly Building and the addition
of 1,440 square feet of classroom area. Total square footage at buildout is 9,360.
The proposal is also for a reduction in the number of parking spaces required under
Ordinance No. 348 from 130 to 120.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 914-500-004
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The use hereby permitted by this Public Use Permit is for a church and classrooms built
in two (2) phases. The first phase will consist of a 3,600 square foot
Church/Assembly Building and two (2) 1,440 Classroom Buildings, totalling
approximately 6,480 square feet. The second phase will be a 1,440 square foot
expansion to the Church/Assembly Building and the addition of 1,440 square feet of
classroom area. Total square footage at buildout is 9,360. The proposal is also for a
reduction in the number of parking spaces required under Ordinance No. 348 from 130
to 120.
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 Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5. 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 one (1) year 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 one (1) 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.
R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb 12
5. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit E
(rendering), or as amended by these conditions.
a. The canopy in the front of the site shall be deleted.
m
Colors and materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit E (color rendering).
A minimum of 130 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12,
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. One hundred twenty (120) parking spaces shall
be provided as shown on Exhibit D. A reduction in the amount of required parking has
been approved with this application.
A minimum of three (3) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on
Exhibit D.
9. Four (4) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
10.
Light Standards, including parking lot light standards shall be a maximum of four (4)
feet in height, unless a height greater than that is necessary for security reasons,
Lights shall be turned off at 11 p.m., unless it is demonstrated that they are necessary
for security.
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 One Thousand Three
Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00), which includes the One Thousand Two
Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish
and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County
administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under
Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code of Regulations Section
15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not
delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the
project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game
Code Section 711.4(c).
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
12.
The applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that
ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for
development). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat
Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the
applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as
implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
13,
A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for
consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential
paleontological/archaeological impacts. Should the paleontologist/archaeologist find
potential is high for impact to significant resources, a meeting between the
R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb 13
paleontoIDgist/archaeologist, Planning Director, and grading contractor prior to the
commencement of grading operations and the excavation and grading contractor shall
be arranged. Mitigation measures shall be approved by the Planning Director and
included in a Mitigation Monitoring Program. When necessary, the
paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily
divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
14.
The developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program
which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met and
the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall pay all cost
associated with all monitoring activities.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
15.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first phase, the applicant shall submit
a landscape installation phasing plan to the Planning Department for approval.
16.
Elevations shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review and approval prior
to the issuance of building permits for each phase of development.
17.
Prior to the Issuance of building permits for each phase, the applicant shall submit
three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans along with the
appropriate filing fee to the Planning Department for approval. The plans 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.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
18.
An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage shall be submitted and approved by
the Planning Director.
19. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
20. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
21.
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.
22.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to
guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Planning.
23.
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
R:~STAFFRPT\6PUP,PC 4/28/94 klb 14
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.
24.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
25.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the
Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula
Code.
26.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
27.
Prior to the commencement of any construction work, obtain all building plan and
permit approvals.
28. Obtain street addressing for all proposed' buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
29.
All existing buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped
accessibility regulations.
30.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior
lighting, fire alarm systems.
31.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C.
32.
The applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original
signature on plans submitted for plan review.
33.
The applicant shall provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule,
plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
R:\STAFFRPT\6PUp,pC 4/28/94 klb 15
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate Staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
General Requirements
34.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and
improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
35°
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
36.
A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall submitted to the City for approval prior to the issuance of
any permit.
37.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
38.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit f.rom t,he State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
39.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
Department of Fish and Game
Army Corps. of Engineers
R:\STAFFRPT~SPUp.pC 4/28/94 klb 16
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45,
46.
47.
48.
49.
A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of
Approval.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a 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.
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 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to
issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been
already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
Offsite runoff is proposed 'to be conveyed through the site by means of a series of
storm drain pipes. The requirements for the drainage facilities; i.e., size and location
of the inlet, construction of the headwalls, etc.; shall be reviewed at design stage.
Drainage facilities shall be provided as approved by the Department of Public Works.
Easements shall be obtained as determined by the Department of Public Works. Any
changes to the site plan due to said provisions shall be approved by the Planning
Commission. The Developer shall pay all the appropriate fees to process the revisions
for review and approval.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the
release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of
the drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for
review. The location of the recorded easement shall be delineated on the precise
grading plan.
R:~STAFFRPT\6PUP,PC 4/28/94 klb 17
50.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of
streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will
apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited
for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by
the Department of Public Works.
51.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
52.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits
53.
All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
54.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works shall be
required for all public streets. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of exiting
utility facilities within the right-of-way as directed by the Department of Public Works.
55,
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or
precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Nos.
207/207A and 401 (curb and sidewalk).
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans
as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in
accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Public Street improvement plans shall include plan profiles showing existing
topography and utilities, and proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline
R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.pC 4/28/94 Idb 18
grades as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters to an
adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
56.
A Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved
by the Department of Public Works. Where construction on existing City streets is
required, traffic shall remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall provide
for adequate detour during construction.
57.
A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane and
shall be included in the street improvement plans.
58.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private improvements in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works.
Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and
other traffic control devices as appropriate
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Landscaping (slopes and parkways)
d. Sewer and domestic water systems
e. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines
f. Erosion control and slope protection
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
59.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Fire Department
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC 4/21]/94 klb 19
60. All necessary construction orencroachment permits have been submitted/accomplished
to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
61. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works
62.
All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
63.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as
established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
64.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
65.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to
be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the
date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase
thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee,
a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer 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 ~10,000.
The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in
excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such
fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest
the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact
fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact
fee for this project; orovide(t that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
Prior to the Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
66.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Department of Fish and Game
Army Corps. of Engineers
R:\STAFFRPT~apUp.pC 4/28/94 klb 20
67.
68.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive
approaches, parkway trees, street lights on all interior public streets, signing, striping,
and traffic signals.
Calle Girasol shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 104, Section A (32/60).
69.
Tommy Lane shall be improved per the "Optional Rural Arterial" Standard as identified
in the Circulation Element of the General Ran, including a knuckle at Calle Girasol and
a turn around at the terminus of Tommy Lane.
70.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions,
such easements shall be obtained by the Developer; or, in the event the City is required
to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the
Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such
easement at the Developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5,
which shall be at no cost to the City.
71. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
72.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers shall be submitted and
approved as required by the Department of Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
73.
Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions
set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated April 11,1994,
a copy of which is attached.
74.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood
Control District's transmittal dated October 20, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
75.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated December 1,1993,
a copy of which is attached.
76.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated April 18, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
77.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated October 22, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb 21
County of Riverside
FROM:
RE
DATE: April 11, 1994
Crl"/OF TEMECUI.A PLANNING DI~PAR'IMffNT
ATI'N: Mallhew Fagaa
(i~F//~l DEI.I,F. NIIAC:I I, ~vi~tal ll~ SJ~ciali~l IV
PUBLIC lJ~ PImMIT NO. 6 (~URC~ ~,OF CHRIS~
l)cpallntont of Environnl~aslid I lotitCh Final C. ondidml.~ given in Illis IctlcJ' bllpOrSOllO all
provious ouncspondonce.
During thc: rovicav proccss of Ibis caM. (tip to Aim.'lxtmclll No. 5), as of lhis dal~ wc have. not
re4~ivod a i>crcolnlion it. st for m~y subsm'facc sewage dispond sysWm bul hav~; rr.;ceivod
writtcal oommcnts from EnKh,'m Municipal Wnlcr District flint .~o~;r s~rvi~.: is in lh,'- arun,
(i .o. aleJig NiooJna Rond West ofN. Oencnd Kcrn~, Road).
Sinoo Iho luoatiou of lhc church ill at the Southwest comor of Callc Bin'nsol ,aid T~um.y
(lhomas Guide Page 115, B4) roughly I I/4 mile nwny, our oonditions bs~l ml Califon,n
Rogional Walcr Qualily Colm-ol Board (sco att~cl~cd) rovicw policy will not permit
el~rnn~e for n subsurfact: ,owngo dispoml syswan ,,less n waiver i. granted I:D' this
for dfis projoel.
Comr, cdon R, sauil~.ry suwcr must be ace.~nplistaod as indicalcd in }~qslcm Municipal WaWr
l)isnict' s "will-~,~ w" Mtcr dat~J 12-14-93.
OD:dr
(909) 275-8980
Bob Morris, San Die, go Rogimal Watcj' Qualil), Control B~KI
Jolm J~ns~, MaJ~u and Ass~iatos
COUNTY OF RIVF. RSIDE · Hl':Al;rl I SF, RVtC. P_~ .AGENCTf
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
1737 A TL,4NTA AVE., BLDG., H-5, R!I/ER,VIDE, CA 92507
PHONE: (909)27,¢..8980 FAX: (909)781-9653
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Whom it May Cmlc~m
Jolm Sih'8, P.LL, S~ior P.blic H~alffi i~zgin~'r, DcpannwJlt of
Environmental Health
CALIFORNIA REGIONAl, WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD, SAN DIEOO REdlION APPROVALS
The California Regional Water Quality Comrol Board San Diego Region (C.R.W.CQ.B.)
on Maroh 12, ! 991, tempertally suspended oversight of subaurfa¢:~ disposal system review
and approval, The Board authorized that immediately and until further notice the
Riverside County Department oftinvimnmental Health will review and process, pending
and new requests, for subsurface disposal systems.
In addition to the standard RNcrsidc County Environmcmal Health Service review policy,
the Following shall apply for all subsurface sewage disposal approvals. The project
proponents must partivularly demonstrate to Riverside County Enviwnmental Health that:
The historic high ground water elevations am not within five (5) fe~ ofthe bottom
of any subsurface disposal $yslem utilizing leach lines/beds and ten (1 0) feet for
geepage pits.
2. Seepage pi( or icaci~ lln~ effluent will be relained below the/~round surface without
downgcsdicnt seeps or surfacing.
Adequate soils lmv, oladon test rt~ults have bean obtained for any and all lois.
4. The total disclmrgc from any commercial projects, tracts, subdivisions (including
commercial parcel maps) will not ~xcc:ed 240 gallons per day per acre.
Only domestic waste (no industrial waste) will be discharged to subsurface
disposal systems,
!,dua,jal waste r~quirtm~nts shall be determinr. xl and controlled by the San Diego Water
Qualily Control Board.
Should yov have any questions, please e, ontaot myself or Cffeg Dellenbach at (909)
275-898f3.
John M. Fanning, Director '.
4005 Cotanty CIrcle Drive, RIverside, CA 92503, Phone (909) 35e-5316 · FAX (908) 35B-5017
(Mailing Address - P.O. Box 7600 · RIverside, CA 92513-7600) ~-~-,~,~- ~
-;NNETH L EDWARDS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Ladies and Gentlemen:
..: ?07 G
The Distdct does not norm=ely recommend conditions for land divisions or o~her land use cases in irxtomeraled cities. The Distdc~ =iso does not
plan check city land use caas, or provide Slate Division of Resi Estate lettors or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District
comments/recommendations for such cases are norm=ely limited to items of aped~c interest to the Disrict including District Master Drainage Ran
facilities, other region=i flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered I logical component Or extension of i master plan system,
end District A~ea Dr=inage Plan fees (developmere mitiglion fees). In addition, information of a genersi nature is provided.
The District be.~ not reviewed the proposed project in detsil mxl the following ched~ed ¢ommeots de not in any way constitute or imply District
approv=i of endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety Or any other suoh iseue:
F'~This project would not be impacted by District Master DrNnage Ran facilities nor are other fadlities of region=i interest proposed.
F"'} This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will ~ ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities
must be constructed to Diethot standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for Distdct acceptence. Plan ched<,
inspection and administrative fees will be required.
I this project proposes channels, storm dr=ins 36 inches or larger in diameter, of other facilities that could be considered region=i in nature
and/or a logical extension Of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District would Consider =Pt'~pting
ownership of such facilities on written request Of the City. Fadlities must be ¢or,.structad to Disthor Standards, and District plan chec~ and
tees have been edopteq; applic, abl® tees shoulrl be p=id to the Flood ~,:;rd~l~"strict or Oily prior to tin=i adprov=i of the project, or in the case
of a parcel map or subdivision priOr to recotdatio~ Of the lin=i map. Fees to be p=id should be st the rile in effec~ at the ttl~e of
or if deterred, st ~ time of issuance of the ~ctu=i bermit.
GFNFFIAI INFOFIMATION
This protect may require · Nation=i Poflutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Stale WStlt Resouroes Control Bold.
Ctearance for grading, recordatlon, Or other final approv=i, should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been gramed a
permit Or is shown to be exempt.
ff this proiec~ involves a Feder=i Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ~ flood pin, then the City shouid require the applicant to
prowde all stuffies, c=icuimions, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant
obtain a Conditlon=i Letler of Map Revision (CLOMR) priOr to grading, ric~,-~'aation Or other final approv=i Of the protect, and a Letter Of Map
Revision (LOMR) prior to oo:upancy.
If t natur=i waterCourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project the City should require the applicant to obt=in a Saclion 1601/1603
Agreement from the Californfa Depmlment of FIsh and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 pen~t from ~ U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, or written correspondence from these agehaas indicating the pro~ect is exempt from these require. A Ctean Water Act Section
404 Water QuaJity Certlficalion may be required from the local Califomii Regional Water Qu=iity Conlroi Board priOr to issuance of the Corps
404 permit.
Very truly yours,
DUSTYWILUAMS
SenSot Civil Engineer
st.: Io-?_-O-c)'%
c-~JMttARRIS
i CHm':F
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACI~TO AVENUE · PF_/R. IS, CALIFORNIA 92570 · (909)_657-3183
December l, 1993
TO:
ATTEN:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MATTHEW FAGAN
PUBLIC USE PEP, MIT 6 ENDED 5
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced
plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire
protection measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecula
Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering
2500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure, which must be available before any combustible material
is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2-
2 1/I"), will be located no less than25 feet or more than165 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.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to
the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a
registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval
signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location,
spacing an~ minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the
local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
Department for signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be
installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on the job site.
The 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 measures. If main
church building is not area separated, fire flow will be 1500 GPM
with Fire Sprinkler system installed.
~] RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 12th Slrect, Riverside. CA 92501
(909] 2754777 * FAX (909) 369-7451
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION
PLANNING SECTION
79-733 Country, Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201
(619) 863-8886 * FAX (619) 863-7072
RE: PUP 6 '-
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The'
post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be
located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a hydrant,
and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that
the building will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included
on the title page of the building plans.
In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area
separated into square foot compartments approved by the fire
department, as per the Uniform Building Code Section 505(f).
Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to install a U.L. Central
Station Monitored Fire Alarm system, that monitors fire sprinkler
system water flow, P.I.V. and all control valves. Plans shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to
installation.
Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to install a Manual and
Automatic prerecorded VOICE fire alarm system in the main church
building. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for
approval prior to installation.
Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to install a manual and
automatic Fire Alarm System in all classroom buildings. Plans
shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to
installation.
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If
building/suite requires Hazardous Material Reporting (Material
Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets
shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fire or
burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring.
Plans shall be submitted to'the Fire Department for approval prior
to installation.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the
Uniform Building Code. Low level exit signs shall also be
provided, where exit signs are required by section 3314(a).
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of
2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper
placement.
Comply with Title 19 of The California Code of Regulations.
It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this
occupancy that would classify it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9
of the Uniform Building Code.
RE: PUP ~
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and
driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be_
mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire
hydrant.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall
prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan
designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and
or signs.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 6
inches in height, on the street side of the building with a
contrasting background.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall
deposit, with the City of Temecula, the sum of $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there
exists conditions set forth by the Fire Department.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed
in the Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be
referred to the Fire Department Planning and engineering section.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
/
~,~--~.,,:..ifl' ~."',~'
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
Wa r
Board of Dirgr~rs;
John F. Hennlgar
Phillip L. Forbes
Kenneth C. Dea[y
Wallace ]FL Peck
April 18, 1994
RECEIVED
APR 19 {SSz+
Mr. Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SLrBJECT:
Water Availability
Southeast comer of Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane
Church of Christ
Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No, 5
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Please be advised that ihe above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water sen, ice,
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.
ff you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Development Engineering Manager
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
J
October 22, 1993
OCT 2
Matthew Fagan, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: PUP No. 6 (Church of christ)
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 church
development of 5 acres, located at the southeast corner of the
intersection of Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane.
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 imprqvement. 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.
The developer must arrange for the preparation of a detailed plan
of service. The detailed plan of service will indicate the
location(s) and size(s) of system improvements to be made by the
developer (or others), and which are considered necessary in order
to provide adequate levels of service. To arrange for the
preparation of a plan of service, the developer should submit
information describing the subject project to the District's
Customer Service Department, (909) 925-7676, extension 409, as
follows:
Written request for a "plan of service".
Minimum $400.00 deposit (larger deposits may be required
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinro Avenue, San Jacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA
Matthew Fagan
PUP NO. 6
October 22, 1993
Page 2
for extensive development projects or projects located in
"difficult to serve" geographic areas).
Plans/maps describing the exact location and nature of
the subject project. Especially helpful materials
include grading plans and phasing plans.
Sanitary Sewer
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF).
The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the
subject project are as follows:
15-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer pipeline located in
Nicolas Road at North General Kearney Road (Assessment
District No. 161 is expected to build a sewer pipeline along
Nicolas Road between North General Kearney Road and
approximately Marmion circle.)
Other Issues
The representative of the subject project must contact the
District's Customer Service Department at (909) 925-7676 ext. 822
to arrange for plan check and field inspection of proposed
District facilities and onsite plumbing.
Should you have any questions regarding these conunents, please feel
free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, extension 468.
Very truly yours,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
David G. Crosley
Senior Engineer
Customer Service Department
DGC/cZ
AB 93-1146
(wp-ntwk=PUl~.~lz)
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL STUDY
R:',STAFFRPT%6PUp,pC 4/28/94 klb 22
City of Temecula
Planning Department
ltlljtial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND INFORMA~ON
1. Name of Project:
2. Case Numbers:
3. Location of Project:
4. Description of Project:
Church of Christ, Rancho California
Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5
Southeast comer of Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane
A church and classrooms built in two (2) phases. The first
phase will consist of a 3,600 square foot Church/Assembly
Building and two (2) 1,440 Classroom Buildings, totalling
approximately 6,480 square feet. The second phase will be a
1,440 square foot expansion to the Church/Assembly Building
and the addition of 1,440 square feet of classroom area. Total
square footage at buildout is 9,360. The proposal is also for
a reduction in the number of parking spaces required under
Ordinance No. 348 from 130 to 120.
5. Date of Environmental
Assessment: April 13, 1994
6. Name of Proponent: Doug Keup
7. Address: P.O. Box 364
Temecula, CA 92593
8. Phone Number of Proponent: (909) 676-7728
II.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section HI)
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 featores?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geelogic or physical features?
Yes Maybe N__Q
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb 23
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion?
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake?
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 patterns, 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?
Yes Maybe
X
X
X
X
X
X
N__o
X
R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb 24
Yes Maybe No
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding? __ __ X
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants (including frees, 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? __ __ X
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, benthic organisms, and/or insects)? __ 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?
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? X
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
R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC ~./28/94 klb 25
Yes Maybe
b. Alteration to the future pined land use of an area as described
in a community or general plan? __ __
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous
substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticides, chemicals,
oil or radiation)?____
b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic
materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticicles, chemicals,
or radiation)?
c. Possible inte~erence with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan? __ __
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of an area? __ __
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing? __ __
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? __X __
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including
public transportation?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? X
N_.qo
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb
Yes Maybe No
14. Public Ser{ices. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection? __ __
b. Police protection? __ __
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
f. Other governmental Services: _ _
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? __ __
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? __X __
f. Solid waste disposal systems? __ __
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of
utility delivery system improvements for any of the above? _ _
17. Human Health. 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?
__x
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT%6PUP.PC 4128184 Idb 27
18.
19.
20.
Yes Maybe N__~o
Aesthelics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public?
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area?
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?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
X
X
X
X
R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb
HI. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1.a.
No. The proposal will not result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures.
Manufactured slopes will be created on the site, however, any unstable conditions will be mitigated
through planting of slopes for erosion control (that is consistent with Uniform Building Code
Standards and Ordinance No. 457) and through proper compaction of the soils. 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.
1.b.
Yes. The proposal will result in the disruption, displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the
soil. All grading activity requires disruptions, displacements, compaction and overcovering of the
soil. The amount of disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soil will be the
minimum amount needed to realize the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in a change in the site topography and ground surface relief features.
The slope on the eastern portion of the site will be graded to accommodate the use on the site. The
manufactured slope will be no greater than a 2:1 ratio and will tie into the top portion of the natural
slope. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.d.
No. The proposal will not result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features exist on the site. As mentioned in
response 1 .c., topography on a portion of the site will be altered to realize the project. The eastern
most portion of the site will remain undisturbed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
1 .e,f.
Yes. Development of the site will result in increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and
off-site and in changes in siltation, deposition, and erosion. Grading will occur during the
construction phase for the project. The potential for wind and water erosions of soil will increase
from the creation of manufactured slopes. Short-term impacts will be mitigated through grading
techniques that are consistent with Air Quality .regulations and best grading practices. Long-term
impacts will' be mitigated through site landscaping and the construction of hardscape. Erosion
control .measures will be implemented as a condition of approval for the project and will have to
be consistent with Uniform Building Code Standards and Ordinance No. 457. This will ensure that
no significant impacts arise as a result of this project.
1.g.
Yes. The proposal will result in modifications the existing drainage course. An identified blue line
stream currently traverses the site and will be channelled into drainage pipes to accommodate the
water flowing through the property. Prior to any modification to the channel, clearances will need
to be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Depax~anent of Fish and
Game. This will assure that any potential impacts are mitigated to a level less than significant.
The project will not result in modifications to any river or lake since none are proximate to the site.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.h.
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
R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb 29
will be mkigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code
standards. The project will not expose people or property to geologic hazards such as landslides,
mudslides, Found 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 Found failure and liquefaction is
also low in this area. The above mentioned assumptions are based upon information contained in
the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report (dated August 12, 1992). No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1. i.
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.
2.a,b.
Yes. The project will result in air emissions and deterioration of ambient air quality in the short-
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. There will be no air
emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality in the long run. 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.
Water
Yes. The proposal will result in changes to currents, to the course or direction of water movements
in either marine or fresh waters. Two (2) blue line streams traverse the project site, one of which
is proposed to be channeled under the project through drainage pipes. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project. Reference response No. 1 .g. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
3.b.
Yes. The proposal will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and
amount of surface .runoff. Previously permeable Found will be rendered impervious by
construction of buildings, accoinpanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and
surface runoff will change, impacts are mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will
be required which will safely and adequately handle any of the runoff which is created by the
realization of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.c.
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.
3.d.
Yes. The proposal will result in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody. A
blue line stream that traverses the western portion of the site will be altered and the site will be
improved with hardscape, landscaping and structures. The stream is perennial and impacts to it
from this project will be minimal. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:%STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb 30
3.e.
Yes. The proposal will result in discharges into surface waters or in any altoration of surface water
quality. Surface waters located downstream from the project will be affected by the runoff from
the site. 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.
3.g.
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.
3.h.
No. The project will not result in the reduction in the mount of water otherwise available for
public water supplies. 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 November 16, 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 expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
Reference responses 3.c. and 3.d.
Plant Life
4.a-c.
No. The proposal will not result in a change to the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants. No native species of plants have been identified at the project site. The proposal
will not result in a reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species
of plants. In addition, development of the site will not result in the creation of a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species2 No ~igni~cant 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 farmland, farmland of
statewide or local importance, or unique farmland is located within the project site.
Animal Life
b,d,e.
Maybe. The project may result in a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of species of
animals. The project site is located within the Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Habitat Conservation
Area. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a specific site survey will be conducted to
determine if the SKR presently inhabits the site. If the Stephens Kangaroo Rat is identified on the
project site, the project could contribute to an incremental reduction of SKR habitat. Any impacts
R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb 31
to the SKR would be mitigated by the Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fees as required by the
City of Temecula.
5.c.
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
Yes. The proposal will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and
any development of the land would logically result in an increase to noise levels, This would occur
both during construction phases as well as an overall increase to noise in the area over the long
run. These impacts will not be considered significant because the church is lower in elevation of
most of the adjacent residences. No significant impacts from noise are anticipated as a result of
this project.
6.b.
Yes. The project will expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction
phase in the 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 source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered
significant. No significant impacts are anticipated either in the short- or long-run.
6.c.
Yes. The proposal will result in the exposure of people to severe vibrations. Reference response
6.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Light and Glare
Yes. The proposal will ultimately produce and result in light/glare, because development of the
site will create new light sources. 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). A lighting plan has been required as a condkion of approval and will be reviewed
to minimize impacts to adjacent residences. In addition, light standards, including parking lot light
standards shall be a maximum of four (4) feet in height, unless a height greater than that is
necessary for security reasons. Lights will be required to be turned off at 11 p.m., unless it is
demonstrated that they are necessary for security. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
Land Use
8.a.
Yes. The proposal will alter the present land use of the area, because the site is currently vacant.
When the project is realized the use of the land will be altered. The proposal is consistent with the
General Plan which states: "Additional public and institutional uses, including churches and
daycare, may be developed in the residential or non-residential land use designations under the
procedures established in the Development Code. The Development Code is currently being
prepared and has yet to be adopted. In the interim, Staff utilized Ordinance No. 348 as the
"development code." Under Ordinance No. 348, a church is permitted in any zone provide a
public use permit has been granted. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:\STAFFRPT~6PUp.pC 4/28/94 Idb 32
:.
8.b.
No. The proposal will not result in an alteration to the future planned land use of the site as
described City's General Plan. Reference response 8.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
Natural Resources
9.a,h.
Yes. 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 the daily operation, asphalt,
intobet) 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, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
10.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 (Pauba Road) 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. Projects of this nature do not cause people to relocate. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Housing
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.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a.
No. The traffic analysis dated July 28, 1992, assumes sixty-five (65) percent of the trip distribution
will travel northerly along Calle Girasol to Nicolas Road. This route is unimproved and this
project is not proposing any improvements. If said route becomes impassable, one hundred (100)
percent of the traffic generated from the church would travel southerly along Calle Girasol to
Riverton Lane and Calle Medusa. Traffic impacts of this project, at build out would be 3.25
percent, analyzed per current Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts. The existing stop signs provide
adequate traffic control and the impacts of the proposed project should not warrant additional traffic
control measures. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRP'T~6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb 33
13.b.
13.c.
13.d.
Yes. The project will result in an increased demand for new parking. Ultimate buildout of the site
would require 130 parking spaces under the requirements of Ordinance No. 348. One hundred
twenty (120) parking spaces are provided on site. The applicant has submitted a formal request
for a reduction in the mount of parking required under Ordinance No. 348, as well a justification
for the reduction. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will create impacts upon existing transportation system. The project proponent
will be required to improve Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane (for Phase 2) to its ultimate right-of-
way. Due to the time of operation of the proposed project (off-peak traffic generation), no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Riverside Transit Agency CRTA)
routes are not available in the area where the project is located, and therefore, no impacts from this
project are foreseen on RTA's level of service. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods. The site is currently vacant and therefore, no one is traveling to the site.
Upon development of the site, vehicle trips will be to a site which previously had no one travelling
to it. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project (reference response 13.a.).
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.f.
Yes. The proposal will result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians, however, they 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.
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 church and associated 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. Any potential impacts can be reduced to a level less than significant through the
payment of school fees which will be required to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits
for the project. 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. Projects of this natere do not cause people to relocate into
the area or require additional housing. Therefore additional recreational facilities above those
provided on site will not be needed. 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 roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City
R:\STAFFRPT\6pUp,pC 4/28/94 klb ~4
14.f.
Energy
l~.a.
15.b.
Utilities
16.a
16.b.
16.c.
16.d.
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 are incremental, are not considered significant. This
is because the Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses.
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.
No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial amounts 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 (conswuction 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,
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.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to power or
natural gas. The project site is within proximity of existing facilities. Development exists to the
north, south, and west of the site and they already receive these services. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to
communication systems (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to water
systems. As mentioned in response 3.h., water service will be provided by Rancho California
Water District (RCWD) upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the
property owner Ceased upon transmittal dated October 14, 1993, a copy of which is on file with
the Planning Department). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in a need for new sanitary sewer systems. The project is located
within Eastern Municipal Water District's (EMWD) sanitary sewer service area. According to a
letter from EMWD dated October 22, 1993: "...the provision of service will be based on the
detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of the project the status of the District's permit
to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject
property. In addition, information contained in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report
(Certified November 9, 1993) states that adequate facilities exist (and are proposed) which will
adequately service the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb 35
16.e.
Yes. The proposal will result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to on-site storm
water drainage systems. The proposal will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns
and the rate and mount 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. Drainage
conveyances will be required which will safely and adequately handle any of the runoff which is
created by the realization of the project. 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 responses No. 16.a-d.). 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 heard.
The County of Riverside Health Services Agency has reviewed the project and their comment will
be included as a condition of approval for the project (County of Riverside Health Services Agency
transmittal dated April I1, 1994, a copy of which is on file with the Planning Department). In
addition, the proposal will not expose people to potential health hazards. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Aesthetics
18.a.
Maybe. The proposal may result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public.
The project site is currently vacant and is located within a rural portion of the City. Upon
realization of the project, these scenic views may be replaced with buildings and the parking lot.
Although the scenic vista will be impeded, any development of the site with structures would have
the same result. 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. A manufactured slope that will be created on the eastern portion of the site will be in open
view. The slopes will be landscaped; however, they will not be the same vegetation that is the
predominant type in the area.
18.c.
Maybe. The proposal may result in detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area. Reference
responses 18.a. and 18.b.
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 vacant and is not being used for either passive or
active recreational purposes. Projects of this nature do not cause people to significant numbers of
R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb
people to relocate into the area; therefore, additional housing will not be required. A small amount
of facilities will be provided on site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Cultural Resources
20.a,b.
Maybe. The proposal may result in the alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site or in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure or object. The City General Plan identified this area as an "Area of Sensitivity
for Archaeological Resources". Additional analysis will be required prior to the issuance of a
grading permit for this project. Any future impacts will be mitigated through the application of
standard City paleontologic and archaeologic development conditions. In addition, if needed, onsite
archaeologic and Native American heritage resource experts will monitor activities on the site.
20.c.
No. The project 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:\STAFFRFT\gPUP.PC 4/28194 klb 37
L+
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project have the potential to either: degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish,
wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal
species, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehisWry?
Y~ Maybe No
X
Does the project have the potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental
goals? (A short ten impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of
time while long term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
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.)
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" IMPACT 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 conunities, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued
viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code).
X
N__qo
R;\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb ,~8
ENVIRONMENTAL D~TERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
1 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 project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case
because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and
in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will
mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
'repared by:
Assistant Planner
R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb ~9
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT%6PUP.PC 4/28194 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 5
EXHIBIT: A VICINITY MAP
"'* "L DATE: May 2, 1994
R:\FAGANM\REPOFITS\6PUP.PC 4/12/94 mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
,.,J
GENERAL PLAN - Exhibit B
Designation: Very Low Density Residential
ZONING - Exhibit C
Designation: Rural Residential 2 ½
Case No.: Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5
P.C. Date: May 2, 1994
R:\FAGANM\REPORTS\6pUp.pC 4/12/94 mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
' I
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: D
"~ ~. DATE:
PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 5
May 2, 1994
SITE PLAN
R:XFAGANM\REPORTS\6PUP.PC 4112/94 mf
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 5
EXHIBIT: E
P.C. DATE: May 2, 1994
RENDERING
R:\STAFFRPT~BPUP.PC 4/22/94 kJb
CITY OF TEMECULA
Z3'
,go// -
;,
"\"~'~ '"'
' '
I
CASE NO.: PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 5
EXHIBIT: F FLOOR PLAN - BLDG A
D C. DATE: May 2, 1994
R:%STAFFRPT\6PUP,pC 4/22/94 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
23' '1"
11' 'i0' 11' '10'
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: F
P.C. DATE:
PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 5
FLOOR PLAN - BLDGS B & C
May 2, 1994
R:iSTAFFRPT\6pUp.pC 4/22/94 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 5
EXHIBIT: F FLOOR PLAN - CHURCH
PC. DATE: May 2, 1994
R:',STAFFRP'T~6PUp,pC 4~22/94 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC 4/28/94 klb 41
CHURCH OF CHRIST (PUP #6)
FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CITY OF TEMECULA
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
A. PurDose of ReDort and Study Obiectives
The purpose of this focuses traffic study is to evaluate the
development of the proposed project from a focused traffic
circulation standpoint. The proposed development is included
within the City of Temecula in the County of Riverside.
Study objectives include (1) documentation of existing traffic
conditions in the vicinity of the site; (2) evaluation of
traffic conditions for the year at opening of the proposed
project; (3) determination of on-site and off-site
improvements and system management actions needed to achieve
City of Temecula level of service requirements; and (4)
evaluation of the project's percentage of impact to
intersections within the study area; and determination of the
project's fair share contribution for traffic signals in the
study area, if applicable.
B. Executive Summarv
Site Location and Study Area
The project site is located south of Nicolas Road and
east of Calle Girasol within the City of Temecula in the
County of Riverside. Exhibit A illustrates the project
location and traffic analysis study area.
1
,/
LOCATION MAP
RITA.
LIEFER RD-
m
m
I
|
LN.
SITE
CALLE CHAPOS
~)CHURCH OF CHRIST
City of Temecula, California
EXHIBIT A
I
I
.j
I
I
I
I
The study area includes the following intersections:
Calle Girasol (NS) at:
· Nicolas Road (EW)
Calle Medusa (NS) at:
· Nicolas Road (EW)
Winchester Road (NS) at:
· Nicolas Road (EW)
Development Description
a. city of Temecula Planning Case Number: Public Use
Permit #6
b. Proposed Land Use: Church and Elementary School
c. Land Use Category: R-R-2 1/2
Principal FindinGs
Required Level of Service: "D"
Level of Service With Proposed Development: For
Year 1993 traffic conditions with the project, all
of the study area intersections will operate at
Level of Service "A" or better during the peak
hours.
The project will generate approximately 100 trip-
ends per day with 10 vehicles per hour during the
3
AM peak hour and a nominal number of vehicles per
hour during the PM peak hour.
de
Other projects in the vicinity of the site include
the following:
· PM 26488
· TR 24785
· TR 26828
· TR 25004
Based upon a planning level signal warrant
analysis, a traffic signal appears to be warranted
for existing and opening year traffic conditions at
the following intersection:
Winchester Road (NS) at:
· Nicolas Road (EW)
The project will be constructed in two (2) phases,
although for purposes of the traffic analysis, the
full development of the project has been assumed.
Recommendations
Construct half-section of Calle Girasol with a
pavement width of 34 feet from the project's
Northerly boundary to current pavement near
Riverton Lane (local road, 60 feet right-of-way)
during Phase i of the project.
4
Construct half-section of Tommy Lane (short cul-de-
sac, 60 feet right-of-way), during Phase 2 of the
project.
Construct the project access driveway at Calls
Girasol with a minimum width of 28 feet, curb-to-
curb. If the driveway includes a raised median,
the width of a raised median should be added to
this driveway width.
construct a stop sign/legend bar at the project's
exit at Calls Girasol.
The project should contribute on a fair-share basis
to the funding of a potential future traffic signal
at the intersection of Winchester Road and Nicolas
Road.
The project should participate on a pro-rata basis
on funding citywide traffic improvements based upon
adopted City fee programs.
5
F
YEAR 1993 AM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION VOLUMES W/O PROJECT
RITA,
LIEFER RD.
,TOMMY LN.
SITE
CALLE 4A,P,9,OS
k
CHURCH OF CHRIST
City of Temecula, California
EXHIBIT ,R
IRobe~t Kahn, John Kain]
Associates, Inc.
YEAR 1993 PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION VOLUMES W/O PROJECT
,"' UEFER RD.
LN.
SITE
__ c~.LE
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
II
.og~CHURCH OF CHRIST
City of Temecula, California
EXHIBIT S
I
I
I
YEAR 1993 AM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION VOLUMES W/PROJECT
I
I
i
RITA.
LJEFER RD.
---41
,TOMMY LN.
SITE
C~LE CH~S
!
!
I
!
i
I
I
I
I
(~CHURCH OF CHRIST
City of Temecula, California
EXHIBIT , T [
~ CRobe~t Kahn, John Kain~
Associates, Inc,
I
I
I
I
!
!
!
YEAR 1993 PM PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION VOLUMES W/PROJECT
LIEFER RD,
,TOMMY LN.
SITE
CALLE CHAPOS
CHURCH OF CHRIST
City of Temecula, California
EXHIBIT U
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Access
The proposed project will have a full access driveway at Calle
Girasol.
Traffic Contribution
The project will generate approximately 100 trip-ends per day
with 10 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and a
nominal number of vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures will be necessary due to project
traffic contribution to the existing and Year 1993 traffic
conditions in the study area. Circulation recommendations are
presented in Exhibit V.
Fair Share Analysis
Based upon this analysis, the project should contribute a
maximum of 0.4 percent to the funding of a potential future
traffic signal at the intersection of Winchester Road and
Nicolas Road, based upon peak hour approach traffic conditions
(Table 7).
Pedestrian Considerations
The project should complete sidewalk construction adjacent to
the site on Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane to City standards.
On-site pedestrian paths should be provided to accommodate
44
CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS
-
I
I
EXHIBIT V
(Robe;t Kahn, John Kain~l ff
Associates, Inc. J
internal circulation and
sidewalks.
to connect to the
adjacent street
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
46
Ii
Ii
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2, 1994
Planning Application No.: PA94-0026
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 94-_ approving PA94-0026,
Revised Conditional Use Permit, based upon the Analysis
and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA94-0026, Revised
Conditional Use Permit, subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Chill Promotions (dba Mexicali Rose Cantina)
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
To revise the conditions of approval for the underlying
Conditional Use Permit to change the hours of operation,
to allow the serving of food, and to allow minors into the
Premises. :
LOCATION:
28822 Front Street, Suites No. 202 & 203
EXISTING ZONING:
C-P (General Commercial)
SURROUNDING
ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P (General Commercial)
C-P (General Commercial)
Interstate 15 (I-15)
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Service Commercial
EXISTING LAND USE:
General Commercial
R:\STAFFRPT~28PA94.PC 4/26/94 klb
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Retail/Commercial
South: Retail/Commercial
East: Interstate 15 (I-15)
West: Vacant
BACKGROUND
On April 5, 1994, the Planning Commission denied Planning Application No. PA93-0038, e
request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of the existing "Dimensions Teen
Night Club" to a night club that served alcohol. At that time, the Commission expressed
concern about the night clubs proximity to the City of Temecula Teen Center and the
rollerskating rink. The applicant subsequently appealed the Planning Commission's decision,
and on June 22, 1993, the City Council overturned the Planning Commission's decision.
As a result, the applicant for PA93-0038 elected not to proceed with the Council approval.
Because the conditions of approval for PA93-0038 did not state that the approval was "non-
transferable" the applicant for the current application, PA94-0026, was permitted to use the
approval consistent with conditions of approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is located at 28822 Front Street, Suites 203 & 204. The use occupies an
approximately 10, 140 square foot, two story suite. The Revised Conditional Use Permit is a
request to modify the underlying conditions of approval to change the hours of operation,
allow the serving of food and to allow minors into the night club.
ANALYSIS
The purpose of this application is to revise two existing conditions of approval and to add one
new condition of approval. The applicant is requesting that the hours of operation be modified
to allow the club to open at 1:00 pm, versus 5:00 pm, on Sundays only. Second, the
applicant has requested that he be permitted to serve catered food on Sundays only. Third,
the applicant is requesting that minors be allowed into the night club on Fridays and Sundays
only. The applicant feels that by making these changes, the business will be able to attract
a family clientele.
The applicant operates under an alcohol license (Type 42) which allows the sale of beer and
wine. Under this license, the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) does not allow persons under
21 years of age into the night club. The applicant is requesting to allow minors into the night
club when accompanied by an adult 21 years or older, on Fridays and Sundays only. To
accomplish this, the applicant must obtain a new "beer only" alcohol license (Type 40) from
the ABC.
The applicant has been operating the club since February of 1994. To date, the applicant has
complied with all conditions of approval place upon the use. Neither the Police Department
nor staff has received any complaints regarding the use. Additionally, subsequent to the .
original approval, the Teen Center relocated. Because this is a Conditional Use Permit, the
City retains the right to revoke the permit should the applicant violate the terms and conditions
of the permit.
R:~STAFF~T~26PA94.PC 4128/94 kt 2
ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The project site is zoned C-P (General Commercial) and the adjacent parcels are also zoned
General Commercial. The proposed changes to the conditions of approval are consistent with
the requirements of the C-P Zone and Section 18.28 of Ordinance 348. Section 18.28 of
Ordinance 348 requires that the proposed use not pose a threat to public health, safety and
general welfare of the community.
The General Plan Land Use Designation is Service Commercial. The proposed changes to the
existing use are consistent with the Service Commercial designation due to the fact that the
changes will not significantly alter the current commercial use.
ENVIRONMENTAL Db'I'ERMINATION
Staff has determined the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, subsequent to Section
15061 (b)(3).
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with Section 9.1 (General Commercial Zone) of Ordinance No. 348.
The use is also consistent with Section 18.28 of Ordinance No. 348. Section 18.28 requires
that proposed uses not pose a threat to public health, safety and general welfare of the
community. It is staff's opinion that the changes to the use will not constitute a threat to the
health, safety or general welfare of the community.
FINDINGS
PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's General Plan
due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing zoning of General
Commercial and the General Plan Land Use designation of Service Commercial.
The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets all the
requirements of, Ordinance No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
general welfare of the community. The project meets the criteria prescribed under
Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.28. In addition, the attached Conditions of Approval
will assure adequate circulation, access and parking which will facilitate the proposed
Use,
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The
project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations, Surrounding
development is predominantly commercial and operates during daytime hours. The
proposed use has been conditioned to insure it will not impact the surrounding area
businesses.
R:~STAFFRPT~26PA94.PC 4/26/94 klb 3
The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment since the
project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section
15061 (b)(3).
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
Conditions of Approval ~ Blue Page 9
Exhibits - Blue Page 12
A. Vicinity Map
B. Site Plan
C. Zoning Designation
D, General Plan Designation
Applicant's Letter of Justification - Blue Page 13
R:\STAFFRPT\26PA94.PC 4/26/94 klb 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT\28PA94.pC 4/26/94 klb 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TFIF. CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0026
REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO REVISE ~ CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL FOR ~ UNDERLYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO CHANGE ~ EXISTING HOURS OF OPERATION, TO ALLOW
TWE SERVING OF FOOD AND TO ALLOW MINORS INTO THY~ NIGHT
CLUB LOCATED AT 28822 FRONT STRI~,i~.T, SUITE 203 & 204, AND
KNOWN AS PARCEL NUMBER 922-093-002.
WI~.REAS, Tim Hill filed Planning Application No. PA94-0026 in accordance with the
City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WtlF~REAS, Planning Application No. PA94-0026 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
W~InF. REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0026
on May 2, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an oppormhity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA94-0026;
NOW, TFIEREFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TFIE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following fmdings:
A. Pursuant to Section 18.28, no Conditional Use Permit may be approved unless
the applicant demonstrates the proposed use wffi not be detrimental to the health safety and
weftare of the community, and further, that any Conditional Use Permit approved shall be
subject to such conditions as shah be necessary to protect the health, safety and general weftare
of the community.
B. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA94-0026
makes the following findings, to wit:
R:\STAFFRPT~26PA94.PC 4/26/94 klb 6
1. PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's
General Plan due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing zoning of General
Commercial and the General Plan I~nd Use designation of Service Commercial.
2. The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets
all the requirements of Ordinance No. 348.
3. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or general welfare of the community. The project meets the criteria prescribed under
Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.28, In addition, the attached Conditions of Approval will assure
adequate circulation, access and parking which wffi facilitate the proposed use.
4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area.
The project conforms with applicable land use and development regulations. Surrounding
development is predominantly commercial and operates during daytime hours. The proposed
use has been conditioned to insure it will not impact the surrounding area businesses.
5. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment
since the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section
15061(b)(3).
C. As conditloned pursuant to Section 4, Planing Application No. PA94-0026, as
proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and weftare of the community.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The environmental review prepared for this
project indicates that will not have a significant impact on the environment, and therefore has
been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section
15061(b)(3).
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit to modify the
conditions of approval for the underlying Conditional Use Permit to change the existing hours
of operation, to serve food and to allow minors into the existing night club located 28822 Front
Street, Suites 203 & 204 and known as Assesser's Parcel No. 922-093-002, and subject to the
following conditions:
A. . Exhibit A, attached hereto.
R:\STAFFRPT\26PA94.PC 4/26/94 klb 7
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
, 199 .
S'i'~VEN J. FORD
CHA/RMAN
I RI~R1Z. Ry 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 day of
, 199__ by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PI.,Ar,~'H~G COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNT4'n,I,
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRPT%26PA94.PC 4/26/94 Idb E~
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT~26PA94.pC 4/26/94 klb 9
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit
Project Description: To revise the underlying conditions of approval for the underlying
Conditional Use Permit to change the hours of operation, to serve food, and to allow
minors into the premises
Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-093-002.
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
($78.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California
Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required
above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be voided by reason of failure
of condition.
General Requirements
Planning Application No. PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit, shall comply
with all Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. PA93-0038 (copies of
which are attached) unless superseded by these Conditions of Approval.
The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA94-0026 is
to revise the conditions of approval for the underlying Conditional Use Permit to change
the hours of operation, to serve food, and to allow minors into the premises.
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. PA94-0026. 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.
R:~STAFFRPT~28PA94.PC 4127/94 klb 10
5. This approval shall be used within one (1) year of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the one (1) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval.
6. Hours of operation shall be limited to between 5:00 pm and 2:00 am Monday through
Saturday, and 1:00 pm to 12:00 am on Sunday.
7. Persons 21 years of age and under may be allowed into the club on Fridays and
Sundays only. Persons 21 years of age and under entering the night club shall be
accompanied by a person 21 years of age or older.
8. Catered food service shall be allowed on Sundays only.
9. Prior to the change is use, the applicant shall receive a new, "beer only," Type 40
alcohol sales license from the Alcohol Beverage Control Agency (ABC).
Prior to the issuance of Occupancy
10. The applicant shall remove the non-permitted "Nite Club" sign from above the parapet.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
11. 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 Municipal Code.
12. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility
regulations.
13. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C.
14. Obtain Riverside County Health Department approval prior to submittal of plans for plan
review.
OTHER AGENCIES
15. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated April 6, 1994, a copy
of which is attached.
R:%STAFFI~T~26PA94.PC 4/27/94 Idb 11
Temecula Police Department
Memorandum
Datel 04-2G-94
TO: Craig Ruiz Temecula-Planning
FR: Dan Peltsnbergs~
RE: C.U.P. changes for Mexicali Rose P~94-0026
The Temecula Police Department does not oppose ~he changes to the
above listed. Conditional Use Permit as discussed at the Development
Review Committee meeting of April 14, 1994o ~hs current Conditions
as w~l~_n have been reviewed by myself and no problem ~as found.
The conditions in question deal with all~win~ minors into the
establishment under certain circums~ances and hours.
I ask ~hat the remaining conditions of the original C.U.P. be
left inthc~ to help reduce the possibility of crime occurring at
the establishment. If you have any questions, please call me. Thallk
You.
Sincerely,
Temecula Police. Department
FROM:
County of Riverside
APR 12 19,c'
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A'I'IN: Craig Ruiz
~G{/~&/qGiFDELLENBACH, Environmental HealthSpecialist 1V
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE #PA94-0026, REVISED PERMIT
Anti,---_ - ....
DATE: April 6, 1994
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Substantial Conformance No. PA94-0026, Revised
Permit and has no objections.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL, the following are required:
1. '~Vill-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewerrag districts.
2. If there are to be any food establishments, three complete sets of plans for each food
establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing
schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law.
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
cc: Becky Johnson, Environmental Health specialist III
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA93-0038, Conditional Use Permit
Project Description: A request to convert an existing young adult
nightclub into an adult only nightclub which will allow the selling
and on-site consumption of alcohol located at 28822 Front
Street.
Assessor's Parcel No.:922-093-002
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The use hereby permitted is for an adult only nightclub to be located in an existing
building at 28822 Front Street.
This approval shall be used within one (1) year 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 one (1) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval. Should this use be discontinued for a year or longer,
the permit will be deemed null and void,
The applicant shall provide written notification of the opening date as an adult
nightclub to the Director of Planning and the Temecuta Police Department fourteen (14)
days prior to said opening.
In the event that complaints are received relative to the operation of the facility, upon
the recommendation of the Planning Director and the Police Chief, (e.g. noise, trash,
alcohol related arrests) the matter will then be scheduled before the Planning
Commission for consideration of revocation of this Conditional Use Permit.
If multiple and/or constant problems arise at the establishment which adversely impact
the Police Department; the Police Department can at the discretion of the Police Chief
assign officers to work at the establishment. The number of officers assigned, the
hours and days worked is also at the discretion of the Police Chief. Any officers so
assigned wilt be at the current extra duty rate of pay and will be paid for by the owner
of the establishment.
Hours of operation shall be limited to between 5:00 pm and 2:00 am Monday through
Sunday,
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claims, actions, or proceedings against the
City of Temecuta or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or
annul, an approvat of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or
R:\S\STAFFRPT~38PA93-2.CC 7/20/93 klb 9
10.
11.
legislative body concerning Planning Application No. PA93-0038, Conditional Use
Permit. 'l'he City of Temeeula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim,
action, or proceeding against the City of Temecu!a 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 conditional use permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 18.31 of Ordinance
348,
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with the site plan marked
Exhibit "A", or as amended by these conditions.
A minimum of 31 parking spaces shall be provided for the use in accordance with
Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348.
A minimum of I handicapped parking space shall be provided. The location of the
handicapped parking spaces shall be approved by the Planning Director, 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 space shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
12,
The permittee shall obtain a revised permit for any modifications or revisions to the
approval hereby granted pursuant to Section 18.43 of Ordinance No. 348.
13.
Permittee shall develop and utilize a single file queue mechanism at the outside
entrance.
14.
Exterior noise levels shall not exceed 65 decibets as measured 50 feet from the
property line. Applicant shall bear the cost of a noise study if noise level reading is
requested as a result of a complaint to the City,
15,
An Administrative Plot Plan application and accompanying fee for signage and lighting
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
R:',S',STAFFRPT~39PA93*2.CC 7/20/93 klb I 0
16.
Music shall be discontinued by 1:30 a.m. Alcoholic beverage sales shall cease after
1:00 a.m.
17.
Permittee shall consider loiterers as trespassers and request that they leave. Police
shall be notified immediately if they refuse to leave.
18.
The permittee shall notify and obtain approval from the City Planning Department 30
days in advance of conducting any special event (Holiday, Seasonal, e.g.). All City
costs incurred as a result of a special event, will be paid for by the permittee. All
special events will be conducted in compliance with the City's special event
regulations.
19.
Any disturbance at the site will be reported immediately to the Temecula Police
Department.
20.
Exterior lighting shall be the maximum permitted under Palomar Lighting District
standards.
21.
The interior lighting shall be sufficient for a police officer or employee to identify any
person inside the business.
22.
This permit commences when the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control issues the
license to sell alcoholic beverages.
WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT
23.
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or
money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Twenty-Five Dollars
(925.00) for the filing of the Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Clerk.
BUILDING AND SAFETY
24,
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.
25.
Prior to the commencement of any construction work, obtain all building plan and
permit approvals.
26.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C.
TEMECULA POLICE DEPARTMENT
27.
Any additional landscaping will required the approval of the City of Temecula Director
of Planning and the Temecula Police Department.
28.
Maintain adequate number "high visibility" in house security trained in recognizing,
averting, and reporting potential problems within establishment during operating hours.
R:',S\STAFt:RPT~38PA93-2.CC 7120193 kib 11
29,
Provide constant security 3ersonnel in parking lot area during peak business hours,
(afte~ sunset).
30.
Post "No Loitering" signs ~n conspicuous areas of parking lot and make effort to
discourage loitering outside establishment.
31.
Have only one entrance and one exit available to general public, except for emergency
exits. These doors must be secured by personnel during all hours of operation. All
other access doors shall be alarmed when opened.
32. No one under 21 years of age will be permitted in the establishment.
33.
Establishment shall have a designated driver program in effect. Police Department can
be contacted for suggestions, if desired,
OTHER AGENCIES
34.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated March 18, 1993,
a copy of which is attached.
35,
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Health Department transrnittal dated March 9, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
36.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
California Water District's transmittal dated March 10, 1993, a copy of which is
attached.
37.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Police
Department's transmittal dated March 30, 1993, a copy of which is attached.
38.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
R:\S~STAFFRPT~38PA93-2.CC 7/20/93 klb 12
RECEIVED
MAR O 1993
An 'd ............
Temecula Police Department
Memorandum
03-30-93
Craig Ruiz, Assistant Planner
FMa Dan Peltenberger, Officer
Final Conditions of Approval for Minor Conditional
No. PA93001g, AdUlt Nigh=ClOD - formerly "Dimensions"
The following are recommendations for Conditiona of Approval
for the above referenced application.
1. Maximum amount of lighting allowable per Mt. Palomar
restrictions in parking area of establishment.
Low density landscaping (shrubbery) in parking area and
around the building, specifically window areas·
Maintain adequate number "high visibility" in house security
trained in recognizing, averting, and reporting potential
problems within establishment during operating hours.
Provide constant security personnel in parking lot area
during pea}: business hours, (after sunset).
5, POSt "No Loitering" signs in conspicuous areas of parking
lot and make effort to discourage loitering outside
establishment.
Have only one entrance and one exit available =c general
publio. These doors must be secured by personnel during all
hours of operation. F~rther recommend any other access doors
be alarmed when opened.
Nc one under eighteen years of age
10~00 pm. Would prefer no one under
10|00
in establishment after
twenty-one years after
Allow nc one under twenty-one into 't~e establishment if ~hey
have been drinMing alcoholic beverages. Personnel should be
traine~ =o recognize the objective symptoms of intoxication.
R~commend establishment have a ~esignated driver program in
effect. Police Department can be contacted for suggestions if
1
desired.
If multiple an{i/or conatan~: problems arise at the
es~ablishzen~ which adversely impac~ ~he Police Depar~ment--
1:he Police Department dan at the discre=ion of the Police
c~ief aeeig~ oE~icers =0 work at t~e establishment. The
number of Officers aesi~ed, =~e hours and days worked is also
at the discre=ion o~ the Police chief. Any 0[~loers so
assigzled will be a~ the current extra duty rate of pay and
will Be paid for by the owner of ~he establishment.
The above are recommendations by the Police Depar~men~ to help
minimize potential criminal problems.
Dan Feltenberger, 0f=icer
Temecula PoLice Department
(909) 696-3088
I.M.H.,LR.RI$
FIRIS CHEEP
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
-FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN IACINTO AVENUB · PELVIS. CALII~RNIA 92570 * (909) 63%~,183
March 18~ lg~
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
TEqeE~JLA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Craig Ruiz
With respect to the aenditiDns of approval for the above refer-
enced plot plen~ the Fire Department recommends the following
fire protection measures be provided in accordance with the City
of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection stand-
ards:
The access provided for th~ existing sate and on-site water
system (fire hydrants) are adequate for the proposed use, the
following items ~hould be shown on the tenant ~m~rovement ~ulld-
ing plan~ submitted to the Building and S~fety Department.
FIRE LANES
1. Site plan note "Designated fire lanes (building *_ccess)
shall r~main unobstructed and permanently maintained"
FIRE SPRINKLERS
2. Title sheet note "The existing automatic fire sprinkler
system shall be extended to provide coverage in all areas".
KNOX KEY LOCK BOX
3. Title sheet note "The building shall be equipped with a knox
key locR bo~ protect~ by the building ~ire alarm system for
tamper monitoring". The applicant shall contact the fire depart-
men~ for specifications and a knox permit application.
FIRE EXTINGUISHERS
~, Sho~ the location of all portable fire extinguishers, (one
per 5000 square foot or 7~ feet travel distance) fire extinQuish--
ere located in assembly areas or exit corridors ~hall be in
rece!sed cabinets mounted 48" (incr~s) to center above floor
level with maximum 4" (inches) p~ojec;ion from the ~all.
{~ INDIO 6F/ICE
7~-733 Co~m~/Cl~b Drive, Suit= F, India, CA 92201
(619) Bd3-88~6 * FAX (619) ~63-707Z
P~ ~-00~
Provide details of t~ type of lock or latch' on
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be
referred to the Riverside Gounty Fire d~part~ent Planning
division start.
MA:ma
RAYMOND H. REGIS
County of Riverside
HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CIT.Y OF TEMECULA PI.~NNING DEPT.
AT N: Craig RuiZ/ DATE:
H SPECIALIST IV
ENTAL EALTH
MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA93-0038
03-09-93
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Minor
Conditional Use Permit No. PA93-0038 and has no objections.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PIj~N APPROV/kL. the following are required:
1. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate
water and sewering districts.
If there are to be any food establishments,
three complete sets of plans for each food
establishment will be submitted including
a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a
plumbing schedule in order to ensure
compliance with the California Uniform
Retail Food Facilities Law.
SM:dr
(909) 275-8980
Ranchs
Water
March 10, 1993
RF, CEtVECl
~R ~ -~ ~393
~'6 ............
Mr. Craig Ruiz x/
City of Tcmccula
Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Water Availability, APN 922-093;002
PA.93-0038, Minor C.U.P. Adult Night Club
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
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
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Manager of Development Engineering
S~:SO:aj65/Fl~
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R:~STAFFRPT\26PA94.PC 4/26/94 klb 12
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA94-0026
EXHIBIT: A
"~ ~. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRPT~26PA94.PC 4/26/94 Idb
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA94-0026
EXHIBIT: B
P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
SITE PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT\26PA94.pC 4/26/94 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
H
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SERVICE COMMERCIAL
R-A-20
EXHIBIT D - ZONING DESIGNATION: C-P (GENERAL COMMERCIAL)
CASE NO.: PA94-0026
r,--. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
VL
R:~STAFFRP"R26PA94.PC 4/26/94 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
APPLICANT'S Lbl I ER OF JUSTIFICATION
R:~STAFFRPT~26PA94.PC 4/26/94 klb 13
30, 1994
SENT VIA HAND DELIVBRY
City of Tem~cula
PLanning Depa_--tment
43174 Business Park: Drive
Terneafla, CA "9~590
Re: Mexicali Rose Cantina
Dear Sir or Madam:
We are general counsel to Chill Promotions, Inc., a California corporation which
owns and operat~ the cabaret/nightdub known as Mexicali Rose Cantina. The business is
located at 28822 Front Sixeel, Nos. 203-204, Temecula, C_.alffomia 92590 (the "P~mises").
Tim Hill, the president of Chili Promotions, Inc. asked us to set forth in writing the
amendment which R dcsires to the Conditional Use Permit from the City of Temecula for the
Premises a~d the reasons for such amendment.
The Mexicali Rose Cantha opentes curnntty under the City of Tem~cula's
Conditional Use Permit No. PA93-0038 (the "C.U.P. ") The general r~luirementa under th=
C.U.P. dictate that an adult-only nightebb be operated on the Promises. The hours of
operation mus~ be limited between 5:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday. In
addition, the C.U.P. prohibits anyone under the ago of 21 from entering the Premises.
Yhc C.U.P. in its present form was granted to the prior operator of the Premises.
That operator was unsuccessful, and he vacated thc Premises. The Mexicali Rose C. antina
entered inw ancw lease with the landlord, remodeled the ~ and began business
operations ea.rller this year. In thc time that the buajaess has been opcnexi, it is our
undentanding that there have b~en no compLain~ by neighl0on, nor have the polic~ been
called regarding any disturbances. The Me. xicali Rose Cantha has a statc-of-thc-axt sa:urity
system, and its cover Charge for admission to the Premi__~es_ attracts pat. wns looking for
entertainment rather than looking for trouble.
City of Tcmecula
March 30, 1994
Page 2
The Mexicali Rose Cantina would like to have its C.U.P. mended so that it may
engage in the following activities:
The Mexicali Rose Cantim would like to change its houn of operation so thai
it can open its doon for business at 1:00 p.m. on Sundays. Paragraph 6 of the
current C.U.P. prohibits opening prior to 5:00 p.m.
The Mexicali Rose Cantha would ~ to begin serving food, most likely in a
buffet style, m its customers. It is anticipated that the food will be bwught
onto the Premises by a licensed caterer fxom the area.
3. Dinner shows may be pwvided featuring clowns, magicians, mariachis, etc.
The Mexicati Rose Canlina is petitioning the S~ate of California Alcohol
Beyevage Control Boaxd to demote its current No. 42 liquor license, permitting
it to serve beer and wine, to a No. 40 liquor license authorizing it to serve
only beer. It is our underr, anding that under the roguhtions of the Sta~ of
California Alcohol Beverage Control Board, with a No. 40 license, minors m
allowed on the pr~mises.
The Mexieali Rose Cantina would like to be able to admit persons W its
Premises under the age of 21. Seclion 6 of the C.U.P. currently pwhibits
allowing minors into the Premises.
Live music will continue to be performed, and those pat. wns 16 years old and
over will be allowed to remain on the Premises in the dance area.
h is the goal of Chill Promotions, Inc. to erea~ more of a family anxaction with less
of a nightclub aunosphere, and'Chill Promotion, Inc. is willing to downgrade their liquor
license in an effort to serve mor~ food, soda and emenaimnent.
The Mexiculi Rose Cantha will implement the following procedures to ensure that
patrons under the age of 21 will not be served beer. First, beer will be served only from an
upstai~ bar which is separated fwm the dance am at the l~remises. Second, a security
guard will be posted at the base of the entry to the upstam bar to ensure that no one under
21 has access to the area in which beer is served. Third, the hands of those patrons who
have presented ID evidencing that they am over the age of 21 will be stamped. Finally, on
those days in which minon ar~ admitted to the Premises, food will be served until 9:00 p.m.
on Fridays and Satutchtys, and until 5:00 p.m. on Sundays.
Establishments in surrounding communities aw offering at present similar types of
programs which the Mexicali Rose Cartinn would like to offer. However, becausel of the
City of Temecula
March 30, 1994
Page 3
t~'ms of the C.U.P., the lVlexicali Rose Can{ina is having to mm away business, ~.d this loa~
business wanslaxes inw los( tax revenue for the City of Temecuh.
Accordix~gly, Chill l~romotions, Inc. r~specffu~y requests that the City of Temecuh
amend the C.U.P. condiHonai on the -~(ax= of C.~llfornia Alcohol Beverage Control Board
changing the liquor license from a No. 42 for consumption of beer and wine w a No. 40 for
consumption solely of beer, in the following manner.
Amend Section 6 of ~he C.U.P. to allow the hours of operation to be between
5:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. Mondays thrvugh Saturdays and 1:00 p.m. to 2:00
a.m. on Sundays.
2. Amend or delete Section 32 of the C.U.P. so that persons under thc age of 21
may be admitted.
Tim t-IiHi- the president of Chii/Promotions, Inc. and th~ operaor of the Mexicali
Rose Cantina, will b~ available to answer any cluesdons and to provide any additional
materials which you may xT, quest. Thank you for your a_n_~n~on to and assistance wiffi this
mater.
Sincerely yours,
~L HOROWITZ & ILR/ENDL
L~e F. Sac. hnoff
LFS/pjr
cc: Tim Hill
ITEM #8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2, 1994
Planning Application No,: PA93-0191
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 94-__ recommending the City
Council Adopt an Ordinance which would prohibit
Skateboarding, Rollerblading and Similar Activities in
Certain Designated Areas of the City based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
City of Temecula
PROPOSAL:
To adopt a resolution recommending the City Council adopt an
ordinance which would prohibit skateboarding, rollerblading and
similar activities in certain designated areas of the City.
LOCATION: City Wide
BACKGROUND
Over the past several months, the City has received numerous requests from property owners
to adopt an ordinance that would prohibit skateboarding, rollerblading and similar activities in
certain areas of the City. The property owners feel that skateboarding, rollerblading and
similar activities have damaged their property and pose a threat to public safety. On
November 9, 1993, staff presented a report to the City Council which outlined alternatives for
a potential ordinance for both public and private property. The Council recommeded staff
prepare an ordinance which would prohibit skateboarding on private property in those areas
designated by resolution of the Council. The Council further directed staff that the ordinance
permit skateboarding on all public streets and/or public sidewalks except in those areas
designated by resolution of the City Council and to address skateboarding, roller skating, and
roller blading in public parks.
R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93,PC 4/28/94 klb
DISCUSSION
Overview
In developing the Draft Ordinace, staff has sought input from business owners, property
owners and property managers who had previously requested that the City adopt such an
ordinance. To date, there has been no response from any property owner, property manager
or business owner. In an attempt to discuss the Draft Ordinance with members of the skating
community, staff scheduled a meeting on April 14, 1994 at the Community Recreation Center
(CRC) and staff mailed a notice of the meetiDg to those skaters who were involved in the
proposed skateboard park at the CRC. However, none of the 15 invited skaters artended the
meeting or contacted staff about the ordinance. Staff has sent copies of the draft ordinance
to various City departments and the Temecula Police Department, and their comments have
been incorporated into the Draft Ordinance.
In addition to soliciting input, staff reviewed ordinances from other jurisdictions. The Draft
Ordinance includes various elements of other cities adopted ordinances which staff felt
addressed the needs of Temecula.
SkateboardinQ on Private Prooertv
The proposed Draft Ordinance would provide private property owners with the ability to
request that their property be posted as a "No Skateboarding" area. The property owner, or
their representative would make application to the Planning Department signs designating the
property a "No Skateboarding" area. The applicant would provide a site plan indicating the
number and location of the signs. Planning staff and the Police Department would then review
and approve the site plan to ensure the location and number of signs is adequate. Staff would
then prepare a notice of public hearing and a resolution for the next available City Council
Meeting.
Skateboardinq on Public Prooertv
Upon recommendation of the Director of Public Works, the Council may designate certain
public roadways, sidewalks or other public properties as a "No Skateboarding" area. The
process for posting public property would be similar to that on private property with regards
to Police Department review and public noticing. Skateboarding activities would be restricted
only in these designated areas in public right-of-way; the limitations would not be city wide.
The City would be responsible for securing, posting and maintaining the necessary signage.
PostinQ of Sicins
The Draft Ordinance requires that private property owners secure, post and maintain the "No
Skateboarding" signs. To ensure that all signage is uniform throughout the City, staff has
prepared a sample sign (see Exhibit 4a). All private property owners posting "No
Skateboarding" signs would be required to use this format. The Draft Ordinance also provides
the Council with the ability to establish a fee for posting the signs for private property owners.
R:\STAFFRPT\191PA93.PC 4/28/94 klb 2
Penalties
The Draft Ordinance provides for the first two violations to be infractions with a $25.00 fine
for a first violation of the ordinance and $50.00 for a second violation. Subsequent violations
would be a misdemeanor. The fee penalties are comparable with those of other jurisdictions.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff has determined the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and is
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, subsequent to Section
15061 (b)(3).
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. It is staff's opinion that the proposed
ordinance will reduce potential conflicts between skaters and the general public on both
private and public property.
FINDINGS
The proposed Skateboard Ordinance will provide for a safe and secure community free
from the threat of personal injury and loss of property.
The proposed Skateboard Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan through the
creation of a safe and secure community free from the threat of personal injury and
loss of property.
The proposed Skateboard Ordinance does not have the potential to cause a significant
impact on the environment and staff has determined that the project is exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, pursuant to Section 15061
(b)(3).
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 4
Draft City Council Ordinance No. 94° - Blue Page 7
City Council Minutes - November 9, 1993 - Blue Page 13
Exhibits - Blue Page 14
a. Proposed "No Skateboarding" Sign
R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93.PC 4/28/94 klb 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93,PC 4/28/94 klb 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
TITF. CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION
OF AN ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD PROHIBIT
SKATEBOARDING, ROI.I.ERBLADING AND SIMILAR
ACTIVITIES IN CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREAS OF THE
CITY
WHF. REAS, skateboarding, rollerblading and similar activities have the potential to
cause personal injury to the general public; and
WIW. REAS, skateboarding, roHerbhding and similar activities pose a threat to public
and private property; and,
WltF-REAS, the proposed Skateboard Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan;
and,
WItF. REAS, that this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State
law and local ordinances; and,
WItEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library,
Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office, Temecnia Town Association and the Temocuia
Valley Chamber of Commerce; and,
W}IF. REAS, a public hearing was conducted on May 2, 1994, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition.
NOW, TI-W. REFORE, TF[F. PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIW. CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Planning Commission for the City of Temecuia finds that the
proposed Skateboard Ordinance will provide for a safe and secure community free from the
threat of personal injury and loss of property.
Section 2. That the Planning Commission for the City of Temecula further finds that
the proposed Skateboard Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan through the creation of
a safe and secure community free from the threat of personal injury and loss of property.
Section 3. That the Planning Commission for the City of Temecuia further fmds that
the proposed Skateboard Ordinance does not have the potential to cause a significant impact on
the environment and has determined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act, as amended, pursuant to Section 15061 Co)(3).
R:\STAFFRPT\191PA93.PC 4/28/94 klb 5
Section 4. That the Planning Commission for the City of Temecula hereby recommends
to the City Council that the Council adopt the proposed Skateboard Ordinance. This Ordinance
is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this
199__.
day of
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I ItEREBY 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 __ day of
, 199__ by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORN'HII
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRPT\191PA93.PC 4/28/94 klb 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT\191PA93.PC 4/28194 klb 7
ORDINANCE NO, 94-
AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 10.36
TO ~ ~CULA MUNICH~AL CODE REGARDING
PROIIIRITING SKATEBOARDING, ROI .I .~RBLADING, OR
SIM!I .AR ACTIVITIES IN CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREAS,
~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES llE~RERy ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
follows:
Chapter 10.36 is hereby added to the Temecuh Municipal Code to read as
Chapter 10.36
SKATEBOARDING, ROIJ,ERBLADING OR SIMILAR
ACTIVITIES PROtlIRITED IN CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREAS
SECTIONS
10.36.010
10.36.020
10.36.030
10.36.040
10.36.050
10.36.060
10.36.070
10.36.080
Definitions
General Prohibition
Designation of Private Property as No Skateboarding Area
Designation of Public Property as No Skateboarding Area
Posting of Signs Required, Content
Fees set by Resolution
Penalties
Exemptions from the Provisions of this Chapter
10.36.010 Def'mitions
As used in this Chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth herein:
A. "Private Property" shah mean any property held by private interests which is used
primarily for business, commercial, retail, office space, business park, religious, multi-family
or recreational purposes. This shall also include the sidewalks, parking lots, alleys and parking
facilities for these "Private Property" areas.
B. "Public Property" shall mean any property owned or maintained by the City of
Temecula, Temecula Valley Unified School District, County of Riverside and any public utility
with the geographical boundaries of the City of Temecula.
C. "Rollerskates" or "Rollerblades" shall mean any footwear, or device which may
be attached to the foot or footwear, to which wheels are attached, including wheels that are "in
line" and where such wheels may be used to aid the wearer in moving or propulsion.
R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93.pC 4/28/94 klb ~
D. "Skateboard" shall mean a board of any material, designed for the user/rider to
stand or sit upon, which has wheels attached to it and which, if propelled or moved by human,
gravitational, or mechanical power, and to which no separate steering mechanism is attached
which directly controls the turning of the wheels or no mechanical braking system which will
allow the rider to safely stop the wheel(s).
10.36.020 General Prohibition
A. It shall be unlawful and subject to punishment in accordance with section
10.36.070 of this Chapter, for any person utilizing or riding upon any skateboard, rollerblades
or any similar device to ride or move about in or on any public or private property when the
same property has been designated by Resolution of the City Council and posted as a No
Skateboard, Rollerblaring or Similar Activity Area.
B. No person shall use a skateboard, rollerblades or any similar device outside of a
designated No Skateboard, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area in a manner which creates a
nuisance. For the purpose of this Chapter "nuisance" is defined as any activity which:
1. Threatens injury to any person or property, public or private;
2. Creates an obstruction or presents a hazard to the free and unrestricted use of
public or private property by pedestrians or motorists; or
3. Generates loud or unreasonable noise.
C. No person under the age of 18 years shall use a skateboard, rollerblades, or
similar device on public property unless the person is wearing a helmet, elbow pads and knee
pads.
10.36.030
Designation of Private Property as No Skateboarding. Rollerblading or Similar
Activity Area
A. If the property is owner-occupied property, the owner shall submit a written
application requesting a designation of a No Skateboarding, Rollerblaring or Similar Activity
Area.
B. If the property is occupied by tenants of the owner, then the tenants shall submit
a written application with 2/3 (66%) of the tenants on the property supporting a designation of
No Skateboarding, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area and the application shall also contain
the written consent of the property owner or his or her designated representative.
C. The City Council may, by Resolution, designate a private property as a No
Skateboarding, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area. The City Council shall designate such
areas and the times when such activity would be prohibited and order the posting of appropriate
signage in accordance with Section 10.36.050 of this Chapter.
R:\STAFFRPT{191PA93.PC 4/28/94 klb 9
D. The City Clerk shall cause notice of City Council consideration of this application
to be published in any newspaper of general c'treulation at least ten (10) days prior to City
Council consideration.
10.36.040
Designation of Public Property as No Skateboarding. Rolleeolading or Similar
Activity Area
A. The City Council may, upon review and recommendation by the Director of
Public Works, designate any public roadway, sidewalk, or other public property as a No
Skateboarding, Rollerblading or Similar Activity Area. The City Counc~ shall designate such
area and the times when such activity would be prohibited by Resolution and order the posting
of appropriate signage in accordance with Section 10.36.050 of this Chapter.
10.36.050 Posting of Signs Required. Content
A. Prior to the enforcement of the prohibition on skateboarding, rollerblading or
similar activities, the area so designated shall be posted with signs which provide substantially
as follows:
"Skateboarding, mliefolading or similar activity, is prohibited by
Temecula Municipal Code Section 10.36.020. Any violation is
punishable by a free of $25.00 for the first offense. City of
Temecula Police Department 696-3000."
B. Such prohibition shall apply to the property or area so designamd once the
property or area has been posted with signs in plain view at all entrances to the property or area.
Signs so posted at the entrances to the property or area, shall comply with the California Vehicle
Section 22658 (a)(1). These signs will be 17" x 22" with lettering not less than one inch in
height. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner or tenant(s) to post and maintain all
signs prohibiting skateboarding.
10.36.060 Fees set by Resolution
A. The City Council may, by Resolution, establish fees for the receipt and processing
of any applications for No Skateboarding, Rolierbhding or Similar Activity Areas. In addition
the City Council may, by Resolution, establish fees suffmient to cover the costs of developing,
printing and posting the areas designated pursuant to this Chapter.
10.36.070 Penalties
A. Any violation of this Chapter is deemed an infraction, punishable by a free of
$25.00. A second violation of this Chapter shall be punishable by a free of $50.00. All
subsequent violations shall be deemed a misdemeanor punishable in accordance with Section 1.20
of this Code.
R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93,PC 4/28/94 klb 10
10.36.080 Exemptions from the Provisions of this Chapter
A. Any device designated, intended, and used solely for the transportation of infants,
the handicapped, or incapacitated persons, devices designed, intended, and used for the
transportation of merchandise to and from the phce of purchase and other wheeled devices,
when being used for either of these purposes shall be exempt from this Chapter. Furthermore
the City Council may, by Resolution, suspend the enforcement provisions of this Chapter to
accommodate special events when so requested by the event organizer.
Section 2. Severability The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and ff for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this ordinance.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall
be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this
Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a
summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93,PC 4/28104 klb I 1
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of ,
199 .
RON ROBERTS
MAYOR
A'rfEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CAI-IgORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecuh, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 __ was duly introduced and placed upon its fn'st reading at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 199__, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the day of , by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILM'RMBERS
COUNCMERS
jUNE S.
CITY C't .~.P-,K
R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93.PC 4/28/94 klb I 2
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 3
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - NOVEMBER 9, 1993
R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93.PC 4/28/94 klb 13
CiW Council Minu~;es . November 9, 1993
14.
Riaht-of-Way Weed Control Prooram for Fiscal Year 1993-94
Councilmember Stone asked since only one bid was received, if the Department
checked to see if this is competitive pricing.
Director of Public Works Tim Serlet stated four companies were contacted, but Pest
Masters has a franchise in Temecula and does not have the travel expense of other
companies. He stated most other cities provide this service in house, however this
contractor does work for CalTrans and the City of Lake Elsinore. He stated that
various licenses are required to perform this type of service.
Councilmember Stone asked if the City has qualified people to perform this service in-
house. Mr. Serlet answered that the City does not, at this time, have qualified people
or the man-power to perform these duties.
Mayor Mufioz asked that an "environmentally friendly" approach to this problem be
investigated.
It was moved by Councilmember Stone, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Robarts to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
14.1
Award contract for Fiscal Year 1993-94 Right-of-Way Weed Control
Program to Pestmaster Services, the lowest responsible bidder, for the
sum of $29,250.
The motion was unanimously carried as follows:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Parks, Robarts, Stone,
Mu~oz
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCIL BUSINESS
19. Consideration of Prooosed Skateboard Ordinance
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
Councilmember Parks stated he has received letters of complaint from business owners
regarding skateboarding on private property and asked if the City has received similar
letters.
Director Thornhill stated that he has received letters from business owners in the
Tower Plaza and Palm Plaza regarding the need to address the skateboarding issue.
CiW Council Minutes November 9, 1993
He requested direction from the Council on how they would like staff to proceed. Mr.
Thornhill reported that the Police Department feels skateboarding should be permitted
on all public streets and sidewalks, except as designated by Resolution, and asked if
the Council wishes to enforce regulations on private property.
Mayor Muf~oz stated he has a concern about skateboarding in commercial centers and
asked what staff's position is on this issue.
Mr. Thornhill stated that it is not unusual for cities to prohibit skateboarding in
commercial centers, however, typically cities are most involved with enforcement on
sidewalks and streets.
Mayor Pro Tem Roberts stated he does not have a problem with prohibiting
skateboarding on private property if requested by property owners, however he feels
skateboarding should be allowed on public streets and sidewalks.
Councilmember Stone stated he would be against any ordinance prohibiting
skateboarding in public streets and sidewalks, but would like to see an ordinance
addressed to commercial properties at the request of property owners. He stated he
does feel that skateboarding should be prohibited on certain busy streets, such as
"Ynez."
Councilmember Birdsall asked that this ordinance also address roller blades and roller
skating.
It was approved by consensus to direct staff to prepare an Ordinance that supports
staff recommendation #2, "That prohibits skateboarding on private property in those
areas designate by resolution of the Council. This would require property owners to
petition the City for prohibition of skateboarding for a particular property," and staff
recommendation #3 "That would permit skateboarding on all public streets and/or
public sidewalks except those areas designate by resolution of the City Council" and
further directed'that the proposed ordinance will also be drafted to address use in
public parks and will additionally cover roller skates and roller blades.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
20°
ADoeal of Plannina Commission Aooroval of Plannina Aoolication No. 93-0158,
Amendment No. I - Expansion to the Existina Temecula Valley Unified School District
Facility in Two Phases
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report. He stated staff
recommends the addition of new Conditions of Approval Nos. 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17,
with respect to truck deliveries, outside lighting, ingress and egress via the existing
gate, incorporated additional conditions on landscaping to better screen warehouse
facilities and finally required that any storage of hazardous materials be reviewed and
approved by Riverside County Fire and Health Department.
AI'FACHMENT NO. 4
PROPOSED "NO SKATEBOARDING" SIGN
R:\STAFFRPT~191PA93.PC 4/28/94 Idb 14
Red Lettering & Border
White Background
ITEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 2, 1994
Planning Application No. 93-0157 and 94-0002
Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 94- certifying the
Environmental Impact Report (Planning Application No.
94-0002) for Planning Application No. 93-0157; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 94- approving Planning
Application No. 93-0157, based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Temecula Valley Unified School District
REPRESENTATIVE:
BGRP Architecture and Planning and Douglas Wood and
Associates
PROPOSAL:
A request to approve a Conditional Use Permit to allow
the construction and operation of a transportation,
administration and maintenance facility for the Temecula
Valley Unified School District and certify the
Environmental Impact Report for the project. The facility
includes storage of school buses (with no more than 29
buses operational} and maintenance vehicles, fuel and
wash islands, bus repair bays, repair shops for
maintenance operations and administrative offices.
LOCATION:
North of Winchester Road and west of the extension of
Roripaugh Road
EXISTING ZONING:
R-R (Rural Residential)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-R (Rural Residential)
R-R (Rural Residential)
R-R (Rural Residential)
R-R (Rural Residential)
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 sdl
PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Business Park
EXISTING LAND USE:
VacBnt
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Building Area: 24,399
Service Bays: 6
Landscape Area: 19,870
Hardscape Area: 235,227
Total: 279,496
square feet
square feet
square feet
square feet (6.6 acres)
Visitor Parking Provided: 10 spaces
Off Site Employee Parking Provided: 100 spaces
Bus Storage: 40 spaces
Maintenance Vehicle Storage: 74 spaces
BACKGROUND
This project was formally submitted to the Planning Department on July 23, 1993. The
Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on August 12, 1993. The
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) went through four Screen Check reviews before the Draft
EIR was sent to the State Clearing House on February 22, 1994 for a 45 day public comment
period.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Temecula Valley Unified School District ('I'VUSD) Transportation, Administration
and Maintenance Facility will contain a total of 24,399 interior square feet for various
transportation, administration and maintenance activities. Space will also be provided for 40
school buses and 74 maintenance vehicles as well as a fuel and wash island for District
vehicles.
The transportation portion of the facility will involve 10,863 square feet of space for six bus
repair bays with associated repair and storage areas. Surrounding the transportation portion
of the facility are the 40 bus parking stalls. The transportation functions will operate between
the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. with 29 buses generally departing and returning
between 7:00 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
R:\STAFFRPT\157PA83.PC 4/28/94 sdl 2
The administration portion of the facility will involve 5,939 interior square feet of office space
for District administrative functions and will generally operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
The maintenance portion of the proposed facility consists of 6,035 square feet of repair shops
performing plumbing, heating/air conditioning, carpentry, electrical, locksmith, irrigation and
landscape maintenance functions. This portion of the facility will be operational between the
hours of 6:45 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Monday Through Friday.
An additional 1,562 square feet of common area containing compressors, lubrication and
welding equipment will also be provided. As previously indicated, a fuel and wash island will
be provided to serve District vehicles. Dispensing facilities for compressed natural gas for use
in motor vehicles is being considered for the fuel island.
In addition to the forty (40) bus parking stalls noted above, the proposed Transportation,
Administration and Maintenance facility will also contain seventy four (74) parking spaces for
maintenance vehicles, ten (10) visitor parking stalls, including two (2) handicap spaces,
adjacent to the administration portion of the proposed facility and a separate storage area for
lawn mowers and other landscape equipment.
ANALYSIS
Access and Circulation
Project access is provided by e temporary 36 foot wide asphalt easement to Margarita Road
(refer to exhibit H). Four (4) way stop signs will control the traffic at this intersection. The
permanent access will be provided by extending the existing Roripaugh Road across
Winchester Road. The portion of Roripaugh Road extension adjacent to the site is conditioned
to be improved with 56 feet of asphalt pavement with the completion of this project.
However, the Roripaugh Road and Nicolas Road extensions .will be completed prior to
completion of this project as a part of the high school project. It should be noted that these
extensions can not be utilized until the grade difference between the existing Winchester Road
and these extensions is eliminated by the widening project for Winchester Road. Winchester
Road will be improved with the construction of the Chaparral High School. Therefore, after
the construction of Winchester Road, the temporary access, along with the four (4) way stop
sign to Margarita will be removed. Roripaugh Road extension from Winchester Road to the
northerly side of the site will be a private road.
The site has been designed to accommodate easy circulation of the buses and maintenance
vehicles. Landscape planters have been mainly limited to the perimeter of the project to
screen the operations. The site is surrounded by an eight (8) foot masonry wall with security
gates providing access to the interior of the site.
Architecture
The main building and wall surrounding the site are concrete tilt up structures with red and
gray concrete split face building elevations. The main spine of the building is a walkway
covered by a green metal roof. White stucco is used on the elevations of this walkway. The
Fueling Center and the Exterior Wash use the same type of tilt up construction with green
metal roofing.
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 sdl 3
Landscape Plans-
The planters along the eastern and southern property lines are located outside the property
lines. The project has been conditioned to obtain easements for this property and will be
responsible for maintaining the landscaping for this area. The main objective of the landscape
plan is to provide visual screening of the facility and the wall from the adjacent uses. To
screen the facility, Brachychiton Populneus (Bottle Tree) has been proposed on the east, west
and south property lines which has moderate growth to 30-50 feet high and 30 foot spread.
To screen the wall, Rhaphiolepis Indica (India Hawthorn), a fast growing shrub to five (5) feet
high and wide, and Clytostoma Callistegioides (Violet Trumpet Vine}, a vigorous climber vine,
will be used to screen the wall.
Reauired Parkino
The proposed facility will be used almost exclusively by the School District personnel with few
visitors to the site; therefore, only ten (10) parking spaces have been provided for visitors. All
employees will park their vehicles in the parking facility that will be built for the Chaparral High
School where one hundred (100) spaces have been provided (refer to Exhibit H). This parking
lot will be completed with the Roripaugh and Nicolas Road extensions prior to occupancy of
the project. The School District expects the number of employees at the site to be 96 and this
number should grow to 116 by year 2010.
Area Comoatibilitv
The land uses immediately adjacent to the site are currently vacant. The adjacent properties
to the east and south are designated in the General Plan as BP (Business Park). The General
Plan states the typical permitted uses for this designation include professional offices, research
and development, laboratories, manufacturing, storage , industrial supply, and wholesale
businesses. Santa Gertrudis Creek borders the site to the west and the proposed Chaparral
High School is to the north. Therefore, the proposed use will be compatible with the uses
immediately adjacent to the site.
The single-family residences exist further to the northwest across the creek and to the east
across Winchester Road. The proposed site is lower than the existing single family
development to the east and northwest. With future construction of the high school and the
Business Park parcel adjacent to Winchester Road and Margarita Roads, the view to the site
will be blocked by these structures. However, to further minimize the view impacts until these
structures are constructed, the project proposes a landscape planter with trees to screen the
facility from these homes.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The existing zoning for the site is R-R (Rural Residential). This project is permitted in this zone
provided that a conditional use permit is granted pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.28
of Ordinance No. 348. The General Plan land use designation for the site is B-P (Business
park). The project as proposed is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and the General Plan.
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 sdl 4
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial study was completed for the project by planning staff which indicated that there
would be potentially significant impacts with the development of the project. Consequently,
staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary for the project.
Environmental Impact Report No. 94-0002 was prepared by the applicant's consultant,
Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the
significance of all the major impacts. By certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, the
Planning Commission adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Following is a summary of these impacts which have
been mitigated to insignificant levels by the mitigation measures unless otherwise specified
that a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared:
SEISMIC SAFETY
The proposed project will be impacted by seismic activity along the Wildomar Fault alignment
which is located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the project.
Due to the content of on-site soils and the depth of groundwater, secondary seismic hazards
such as liquefaction, if any, that may occur will be confined to the relatively thin zones of
deep saturated soils. Any minor liquefaction occurring on-site is considered insignificant and
is not anticipated to cause damage or collapse of on-site structures.
According to project grading plans, the developed project will be at an elevation of 1076 feet
above mean sea level, 11 feet below the estimated elevation of water in the event of a breach
of Skinner Reservoir Dam. Since the project site lies within the dam inundation area for
Skinner Reservoir Dam, it may be subject to seismically induced flooding from dam failure.
This is considered to be an unavoidable adverse impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted by the Planning Commission (refer to Attachment 5).
SLOPES & EROSION
Development of the project will require alteratio~ of the existing natural landform. Complete
removal of all alluvial, topsoil, 'and loose compressible low strength older alluvium, and/or
disturbed bedrock will be necessary prior to placement of structural fills.
According to the Project Engineer, the proposed grading plan results in an estimated 30,700
cubic yards of cut and 85,300 cubic yards of fill. This results in a grading imbalance of
approximately 56,600 cubic yards. The additional fill, according to the project engineer, is
required in order to raise the proposed structures out of the 100 year floodplain.
Due to the content of on-site soils and site's proximity to Santa Gertrudis Creek, slope erosion
is a concern with regard to surficial stability. In addition, landscaped slopes along the project
perimeter will be provided, if necessary. Drainage and erosion control measures shall be
established at the time of final grading and maintained throughout the life of the project in
order to provide long-term slope stability and performance.
R:\STAFFRPT\lSTPA93.PC 4/28/94 sdl 5
The State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) currently administer the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations. NPDES permits
are issued by the state under the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
selected industries, construction activities and municipalities. The proposed project will be
required to comply with the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit as well
as any permit issued by the City of Temecula.
NOISE
Short-Term Impacts
Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated
by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable
generators can reach high levels. When construction occurs adjacent to existing residential
development, the hours of construction will be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday through
Friday. Construction will not be permitted on weekends or federal holidays.
School Bus Noise Impacts
The primary noise concerns associated with the proposed project will be the school bus
operations. Other noise within the facility will be secondary. Potential noise impacts on
adjacent residences due to the school buses operating out of the proposed site also were
assessed.
In order to provide an accurate assessment of noise levels attributed to bus start-up, start-up
noise levels were recorded from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. on July 29, 1992. According to the
measurements, the noise levels attributed to bus operations will be lower than the ambient
noise levels at the three measurement sites which were located adjacent to existing single
family residences. Noise levels at these locations provide a "worst-case" assessment of noise
impacts of the project upon adjacent residential land uses. At these three locations, the bus
start-up noise levels will meet the day-time model noise criteria without mitigation measures.
Project Traffic Noise Impacts
The proposed project will also generate traffic, and as a result may alter projected noise levels
in the surrounding areas. To assess the impact of the proposed project on land uses adjacent
to streets that will serve the project, the change in roadway noise along the streets was
determined. Due to future development which has already been approved there will be an
increase in traffic in the surrounding area with or without the proposed project. In community
noise assessment changes, noise levels greater than 3 dBA are often identified as significant,
while changes less than 1 dBA will not be discernible to local residents. The future 1994
noise levels will not increase substantially over existing noise levels (less than 3 dBA for the
roadways serving the project).
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 6
AIR QUALITY
Short Term Impacts
Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will be
emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and site
preparation. Only nitrogen oxide emissions exceed SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance, per
the Final Draft 1991 CEQA Air Quality handbook. This is considered to be a short-term but
an unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
adopted by the Planning Commission.
Long-Term Impacts
Local Carbon Monoxide Impacts from School Bus Operations
Potential air quality impacts from the proposed bus start ups were assessed through a CO
monitoring effort at four sensitive receptors surrounding the project site. CO concentrations
were monitored on July 29, 1992 at Sites I through 4 from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. for
conditions with school bus engines running.
The data indicates that there is no significant increase in CO concentration for conditions with
the buses running compared to conditions without the school buses running. Therefore,
school bus operations at the Transportation/Maintenance Facility will not generate a significant
increase in CO concentrations at Measurement Sites.
The air quality consultant who performed the CO monitoring on July 29 and 30, 1992 has
indicated that diesel odors were not noticeable during the on-site monitoring procedures.
Given the distance from the pollutant source to sensitive receptors (adjacent residential land
uses and the future high school) and staggered bus start-up times, in contrast to the
simultaneous start-ups which occurred during the on-site tests, long term impacts associated
with diesel odors resulting from the project are not considered significant.
CIRCULATION
Project Access
The proposed project is planned to take its primary access from Margarita Road opposite the
existing entry to Costco until the future Chaparral High School is constructed. At that time,
the interim access onto Margarita Road will be closed and the proposed project will take direct
permanent access onto Winchester Road opposite Roripaugh Road. According to the Traffic
Engineer, the proposed project will not change the level of service on any of the intersections
that were analyzed except at the interim access intersection at the Margarita Road/Costco
entry. The proposed project changes the level of service at that intersection from C to E
during the evening peak hour as a result of school bus, maintenance vehicle and employee
traffic. Therefore, a four way Stop Sign will be installed by the project.
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 sdl 7
Level of Service in Study Year
Since traffic generated by the proposed project will not result in a level of service change at
any of the intersections which were analyzed, traffic impacts associated with the proposed
project are not considered significant. The intersections of Winchester Road/Nicolas Road and
Winchester Road/Roripaugh Road are currently operating at Level of Service "F" during the
evening peak hour and the existing volumes meet the warrants for signalization. Project
impacts on existing traffic levels at the Winchester Road/Nicolas Road and Winchester
Road/Roripaugh Road intersections are 3.4 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively. The School
District will transfer the existing Maintenance Operations and Transportation facility from its
Rancho Vista Road site to the proposed site. Therefore, the level of activity at the new site
will be the same as the existing site (which is somewhat less than the ultimate development
that was used to estimate ~jltimate project traffic in the Traffic Analysis) and there will not be
a net increase in areawide traffic.
HYDROLOGY
The development phase of the project will result in the creation of impermeable surfaces
(parking lots, bus storage areas, roofs, etc.) on-site that will increase the existing storm runoff
to Santa Gertrudis and Murrieta Creeks. The developed on-site runoff, as well as upstream
surface flows, will be adequately conveyed by the proposed on-site drainage system.
Drainage facilities from the project site ultimately discharge downstream into the Santa
Gertrudis Creek and ultimately into Murrieta Creek. This incremental increased flow rate will
contribute to cumulative increased flow rates downstream and the potential for flooding in
areas with undersized facilities. Since the project site lies within a dam inundation area for
the Skinner Reservoir Dam, it may be subject to seismically induced flooding from dam failure.
This is considered to be an unavoidable adverse impact. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations must be adopted by the Planning Commission.
WATER QUALITY
Construction of the proposed project will alter the com position of surface runoff by the grading
of site surfaces, construction of impervious streets, parking lots, service areas, and roofs, and
by irrigation of landscaped areas. Runoff entering the storm drain system will contain minor
amounts of pollutants typical of most urban uses, including pesticides, fertilizers, oil, rubber
residue, detergents, hydrocarbons, and other debris. This runoff, typical of urban use, will
contribute to the incremental degradation of water quality downstream in Santa Gertrudis and
Murrieta Creeks.
All parking and bus storage areas within the proposed project will drain into a clarifier which
provides three stage treatment for surface runoff. This clarifier will insure adherence to
NPDES requirements. Eastern Municipal Water District will monitor the quality of runoff from
these paved surfaces.
R:\STAFFRPT\157PA93.PC 4/28/94 sdl 8
RISK OF UPSET
The proposed project may involve the storage and use of hazardous materials. As such, the
project has the potential for the risk of explosion and/or the release of hazardous substances.
The use of these hazardous or toxic substances is governed by OSHA standards and the
County Health Department criteria. In the event Of an accidental upset of toxic materials on
the project site, the School District is equipped to handle toxic material spills with equipment
being used or stored on-site. In the event of such an episode, storm drains could be
temporarily blocked in order to contain the spill and avoid drainage into downstream areas.
CULTURAL & SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
No archaeological resources have been found on-site. The surface alluvial deposits found on-
site are sediments laid down by streams that flowed across the region within the last 10,000
years. These sediments are considered to be too young geologically to contain any significant
fossils. Considering its past history of fossil discovery, the Pauba Formation underlying these
surface alluvial deposits is considered to have a Moderate to High paleontological sensitivity.
WILD LIFE & VEGETATION
Conversion of the on-site introduced grassland biotic community to accommodate the
proposed project will reduce areawide introduced grassland habitat for raptors. However, the
area is not considered to be of high significance in this regard. The same holds true for the
loss of habitat supporting other grassland species of wildlife. Development of the proposed
project will not result in the loss of occupied Stephens' Kangaroo Rat (SKR) habitat.
LAND USE
The proposed land uses are in conformance with the City of Temecula General Plan
designation of BP (Business Park) if a Conditional Use Permit is approved in accordance with
Ordinance No. 348. The project applicant has submitted an application for approval of a
Conditional Use Permit (PA93-0157).
The change in land use resulting from project development will not result in significant impacts
to agriculture as agricultural activity on-site has been discontinued. However, project
implementation will result in urban development on "Prime" soils which is considered a
significant impact of project development. According to the California Department of
Conservation, the loss of any "Prime" agricultural land is considered a significant impact for
which a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted by the planning Commission.
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
These functions may involve the storage and use of hazardous material. As such, the project
has the potential for the risk of explosion and/or the release of hazardous substances. The
use of these hazardous or toxic substances is governed by Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Cal OSHA, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards and
County Health Department criteria. Potentially hazardous substances to be found and utilized
in the proposed Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility include fuels, greases and
oils, and cleaning solvents, adhesives, paints, automobile parts (brakes, batteries, antifreeze,
etc.)
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93,PC 4/28/94 edl 9
According to the Temecula Valley Unified School District, employees are given general training
in the handling of potentially hazardous materials. In addition, employees whose duties
include the handling of any identified hazardous material are given specialized training in the
handling of that substance.
In the event of a hazardous material spill, the School District would be equipped to handle
toxic or hazardous material spills with equipment being used or stored on-site. In the event
of such an episode, on-site storm drains can be temporarily blocked in order to contain the spill
and avoid drainage into downstream areas.
AESTHETICS/LIGHT & GLARE
Project development will permanently alter the nature and appearance of the 6.64 acre project
site from its current open space use to the land uses proposed. According to the Landscape
Concept Plan, the project site will be surrounded on three sides by street trees, accent trees
and shrubs which are intended to provide an aesthetic buffer between the fully-developed
project site and surrounding areas, including Winchester Road. View Analyses from the North
and South, respectively, provide graphic representation of the future appearance of the project
site with development of the proposed structures. The site itself does not contain nor will
proposed development block any scenic vistas which merit preservation.
MitiQation MonitorinQ ProQram
The Draft Environmental Impact Report includes the proposed Mitigation Monitoring Program
for the project. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is included as a Condition of Approval for
the project as a whole with several of the mitigations being separate Conditions of Approval
for the project.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed use is appropriate for the site since the Environmental Impact Report has
proposed mitigation measures that reduce all the impacts of the project to an insignificant level
with the exception of short term air quality impacts associated with the construction of the
project, hydrology and .seismic safety impacts associated with the location of the site within
the Dam Inundation area of Skinner Reservoir Dam, and land use impacts associated with the
removal of Prime Agricultural land.
The site will complement the proposed high school and is centrally located within the school
district boundaries.
FINDINGS
The land use or action proposed is consistent with the General Plan. The land use
designation for the site is identified in the General Plan as BP (Business Park).
The provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348 allow for construction and operation
of this project provided that a conditional use permit is granted.
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 sdl 10
The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local
ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section
65360, Section 18.28 (Conditional Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348.
The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community. In addition, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for this
project mitigates all significant impacts of proposed project to an insignificant level with
the exception of Hydrology, Seismic Safety, Air Quality and Land Use impacts for
which Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared. Mitigation
measures have been included in the Conditions of Approval.
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, because the proposed
planning application (conditional use permit), as conditioned, complies with the
standards contained within the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way via an easement which
is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a
publicly maintained road (Margarita Road).
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project.
Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated
with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
PC Resolution 94- - Blue Page 12
PC Resolution 94- - Blue Page 15
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 19
Exhibits - Blue Page 33
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. Site Plan
D. Landscape Plan
E, Elevations
F. Elevations
G. Floor Plans
H. Over All Site Plan
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - Blue Page 34
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 35
Public Comments- Blue Page 36
Response to Public Comments - Blue Page 37
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 94-__
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 1 ~
ATTACHIV~NT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 940002), ADOPTING FINDINGS OF
FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING OF THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTH OF WINCInr,~TER ROAD AND WEST
OF TIIR EXTENSION OF RORIPAUGH ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-180024.
W1TEREAS, Doughs Woods and Associates completed Environmental Impact Report
(Planning Application No. 94-0002) in accordance with the Riverside County and State CEQA
Guidelines;
WltRREAS, said EIR application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by
State and local law;
WtIEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said h'XR on May 2, 1994, at which
time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WI-IEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning
Commission Certified said EIR, Adopted the Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding
Consideration and Approval the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
NOW, TltEREFORE, ~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findin2s. That the City of Temecuh Planning Commission in recommending
Certification of the proposed FAIR, makes the following findings, to wit:
A. Attachment 5 of the Staff Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations
Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby certifies
FEIR (Planning Application No. 94-0002), adopts Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding
Consideration and approves of the Mitigation MoniWring Program on 6.64 acres of land located
north of Winchester Road and west of the extension of Roripaugh Road and known as Assessor' s
Parcel No. 911-180-024.
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of May,. 1994.
R:%STAFFRPT\157PA93,PC 4/28/94 sdl 13
STEVEN 1. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of May,
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI-IIII,
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRPT\157PA93,PC 4/28/94 sdl 14
A'I'rACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 sdl 15
ATrACHIViENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THF. PLANNING COMMISSION OF
TBY. CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A REQUEST TO
APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 93-0157, A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AT,T,OW THF,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A
TRANSPORTATION, ADMINISTRATION AND
MAINTENANCE FACri.ITY FOR THE. TEMECULA
VAI.I.F.Y UNIFr~.D SCHOOL DISTRICT. TifF. FACILrFY
INCLUDES STORAGE OF SCHOOL BUSES (WITH NO
MORE THAN 29 OPERATIONAL AT ANY GIVEN TIME)
AND MAINTENANCE VEmCLES, FUEL AND WASH
ISLANDS, BUS RI~,PA]R BAYS, REPAIR SHOPS FOR
MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICES LOCATED NORTH OF WINCI~-qTER ROAD
AND WEST OF THF, EXTENSION OF RORIPAUGH ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 911-180-024
WltE~REAS, The Temecula Valley Unified School District fried Planning Application
No. 93-0157 (PA 93-0157) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside
County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, PA 93-0157 and was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered PA 93-0157 on May 2, 1994, at a
duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an
opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WI-FF. REAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to PA 93-0157;
NOW, TF/F. RF. FORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THF. CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findines.
following findings:
R:\STAFFRPT\157PA93,PC 4/28/94 sdl
That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
..
1. The land use or action proposed is consistent with the General Plan. The land use
designation for the site is identified in the General Plan as BP (Business Park).
The provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348 allow for construction and operation of
this project provided that a conditional use permit is granted.
The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local
ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section
65360, Section 18.28 (Conditional Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348.
The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general weftare of
the community. In addition, the Environmental Impact Report (mR) prepared for this
project mitigates all significant impacts of proposed project to an insignificant level with
the exception of Hydrology, Seismic Safety, Air Quality and Land Use impacts for which
Statement of Overriding Considerations have been prepared. Mitigation measures have
been included in the Conditions of Approval.
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, because the proposed planning
application (conditional use permit), as conditioned, complies with the standards
contained within the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated fight-of-way via an easement which is
open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly
maintained road (Margarita Road).
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project.
Said fmdings ani supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated
with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the project
by Planning staff which indicated that there would be potentially significant impacts with the
development of the project. Consequently, staff determined that an Environmental Impact
Report would be necessary for the project. Environmental Impact Report No. 94-0002 was
prepared by the applicant's consultant, Doughs Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed
by City staff. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the significance of all the impacts and
proposed mitigation measures included in the fmal EIR that reduced these impacts to an
insignificant level with the exception of Seismic Safety, Climate and Air Quality, Hydrology and
Land Use for which Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations have been
included within the final EIR. Therefore, the City of Temecula Certifies the Final
Environmental Impact Report (PA 94-0002) which inchides the Draft glR , the Response to
Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
R:\STAFFRPT\157PA93.PC 4/28/94 sdl 17
Considerations, the Staff Report and any associated attachments, and finds that it has been
completed in compliance with the California Quality Act (CEQA).
Section 4. Conditions. That tile City of Temecula planning Commission hereby
approves PA 93-0157 to allow the construction and operation of a transportation, administration
and maintenance facility for the Temecula Valley Unified School District. The facility includes
storage of school buses (with no more than 29 buses being operational at any given time) and
maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands, bus repair bays, repair shops for maintenance
operations and administrative offices located at North of Winchester Road and west of the
extension of Roripaugh Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 911-180-024, subject to the
following conditions:
A. Attachment No. 2.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of May, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I FrEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of May,
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONEllS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI41LL
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRPTH57PA93,PC 4/28/94 sdl 18
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT%157PA93,PC 4/28/94 edl 19
A'FFACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA93-0157, (Conditional Use Permit)
Project Description: Maintenance, Operations and Transportation facilities for
the Temecula Valley Unified School District which includes storage of school
buses (with no more than 29 buses being operational at any given time) and
maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands, bus repair bays, repair shops for
maintenance operations and administrative offices
Assessor's Parcel No.: 911-180-024
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers
check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine
Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred Fifty
Dollars ($850.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game
Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollar ($78.00) County
administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required
under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code of
Regulations Section 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).
General Requirements
The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA93-
0157 is for the Maintenance, Operations and Transportation facility for the
Temecula Valley Unified School District which includes storage of school buses
(with no more than 29 buses being operational at any given time) and
maintenance vehicles, fuel and wash islands, bus repair bays, repair Shops for
maintenance operations and administrative offices.
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
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 sdl 20
8.
9.
10.
11.
agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Planning Application No.
PA93-0157. 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 one (1) year of the approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the one (1) 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 the Exhibits
approved with Planning Application No. PA93~0157, or as amended by these
conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit(s) marked I,
or as amended by these conditions. (color elevations and material board).
Materials Colors
Exterior: Concrete Tilt Up
Stucco
Roof: Metal
Windows: Aluminum
Doors: Metal
Glass: Glass
Natural (Type A) and Suntan (Type B),
Light Gray (CM 8592)
Jade Green (AEP Span)
Green/Blue (CM 8684)
Taupe (CM 8453)
Light Reflective Silver (VA 1-13)
Ten (10) parking spaces shall be provided.
A minimum of two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
Four (4) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
The applicant shall comply with all the mitigation measures identified in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR PA94-
0002, Attachment No. 6).
If the number of school buses is increased at a future time to more than twenty
nine (29), the School District shall receive Planning Director approval to access
the additional traffic, air quality and noise impacts associated with the
additional buses.
R:\STAFFRPT\157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 21
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
12.
The applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required
by that ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed
for development). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
13.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all
mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been
satisfied for this stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
14.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans 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 consistent with the approved
conceptual plans.
15.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all
mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been
satisfied for this stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
16.
An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage or a Sign Program shall be
submitted and approved by the Planning Director.
17.
Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground
view.
18.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans.
19.
The temporary access road slopes shall be hydroseeded and irrigated. The
Hydroseed mix shall be approved by the Planning Director.
20.
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.
21.
The applicant shall obtain easements for the landscape planters located outside
the property along the eastern and southern property lines. The applicant shall
be responsible to maintain these planters until the parcel(s) immediately to the
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 sdl 2~)
22.
east and-south of the site are developed.
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
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
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.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning
to guarantee the installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with
the approved construction plans, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for
one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning.
The parking lot adjacent to Roripaugh Road for Chaparral High School shall be
installed.
A performance bond shall be Secured to ensure the removal of the temporary
access road after the completion of the Winchester Road widening project. The
amount of this bond shall be determined by the Planning Director.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any
use allowed by this permit.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all
mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been
satisfied for this stage of the development.
R:%STAFFRPT\157PA93.pC 4/28194 sdl 23
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
28.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other
outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department
of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the
requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655.
29.
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.
30. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in
compliance with Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
31. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
32. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan
review.
33. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped
accessibility regulations.
34. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior
lighting, fire alarm systems.
35. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions
of the 1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C.
36.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on
plans submitted for plan review.
37.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff
person of the Department of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all
existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and
drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for
R:\STAFFiRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 sdl ~)4
further review and revision.
General Requirements
38.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and
improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works
prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road
right-of-way.
39.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
40.
A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic
and hydraulic calculations shall submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any
permit.
41.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
42. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits:
43.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources
Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent
(NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt.
44.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
State of California Water Resources Control Board
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93,PC 4/28/94 sdl 25
45.
A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code, Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these
Conditions of Approval.
46.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
47. An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by
a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works.
48.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the
grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City
Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
49.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department and the Department of Public Works for review.
50.
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.
51.
A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District is required for work within their right-of-way.
52.
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 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or
mitigation cha'rge has been already credited to this property, no new charge
needs to be paid.
53.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements
for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department
of Public Works.
54.
A Flood Plain Development Permit and drainage study shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval. The drainage study shall
include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures
by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
b. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94
surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood
hazard map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and
floodway shall be shown on the precise grading plan.
55.
A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for
the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property.
A copy of the drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public
Works for review prior to recordation. The location of the recorded easement
shall be delineated on the precise grading plan.
56.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing
onto or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits
the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of
Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity,
or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the Developer shall
provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works.
57.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone "A"
and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any
plans, this project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula
and with the rules and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood
Zone "A" which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA.
58.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps
related to the ~ubject.property.
59.
The extension of Roripaugh Road, west of Winchester Road, shall be a private
road. Roripaugh Road shall be designed, and approved by the Department of
Public Works, with 56 feet of asphalt concrete pavement within the dedicated
right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 110.
60.
An offset cul-de-sac shall be designed, and approved by the Department of
Public Works, at the terminus of Roripaugh Road in accordance with City
Standard 600(A). Along the portion where no curb and gutter are proposed,
temporary A.C. berm shall be installed at the exterior curve to accommodate
positive drainage.
61.
The Temporary Access Road shall be designed, and approved by
Department of Public Works, with 36 feet of asphalt concrete pavement.
the
R:\STAFFRPT\157PA93.PC 4/28/94
62. Six (6) foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed along the Temporary Access
Road and Roripaugh Road in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
63.
64.
Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters to an
adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works.
Private roads MUST be designed, reviewed, and approved by the Department
of Public Works to meet City Public Road Standards or otherwise approved by
the Department of Public Works. This should include but may not be limited to:
Separation between on-site intersections shall meet current City
Standards (200 feet minimum).
Minimum safe horizontal centerline radii shall be required in accordance
with City standard 113 or as otherwise approved by the Department of
Public Works (all centerline radii shall be identified on the site plan).
90° parking immediately adjacent to the private streets shall be located
a minimum safe distance from intersections.
Identify whether gates will be proposed at entrances to project. If so,
configuration, stacking distance, and turn-around ability will need to be
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and the Department of
Public Works.
e. All intersections shall be perpendicular (90°).
All driveways providing access to two or more buildings shall be
designed as a cul-de-sac or a loop road.
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00%
minimu~n over A,C. paving.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site
in accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the
improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works.
All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section or
as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
Private Street improvement plans shall include plan profiles showing
existing topography and utilities, and proposed centerline, top of curb
and flowline grades as directed by the Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT\157PA93,pC 4/28/94 sdl 28
65.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure
and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the
Department of Public Works. Traffic shall remain open at all times and the
traffic control plan shall provide for adequate detour during construction.
Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits:
66. All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
67.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by
a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works
shall be required for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment
Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of exiting utility facilities
within the right-of-way as directed by the Department of Public Works.
68.
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans
and/or precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public
Works:
Driveways shall conform to the City Standard No. 207A.
Concrete sidewalks and handicap ramps shall be constructed along public
street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400, 401, and
402.
Ce
Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries
or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or
as appro~/ed by the Department of Public Works.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections
and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and
visibility.
69.
A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for Roripaugh Road, Margarita
Road, and the Temporary Access Road and shall be included in the
improvement plans.
70.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private
improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
R:',STAFFRPT\157PA93.pC 4/28/94 edl 29
Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement,
curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, and traffic control devices as appropriate
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Landscaping (slopes and parkways)
d. Sewer and domestic water systems
e. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans
f. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines
g. Erosion control and slope protection
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit:
71.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Fire Department
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
72.
All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been
submitted/accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
73.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public
Works
74.
All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
75.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip
Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
76.
The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the
adjacent property.
77.
The Developer shall notify the City's Cable T.V. Franchises of the intent to
develop. Conduit shall be installed to Cable T.V. Standards prior to issuance
of Certificate of Occupancy.
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 30
Prior
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
to Issuance of Certification of Occupancy:
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans
and City standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement,
sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees, street lights on all interior
public/private streets, signing, and striping as directed by the Department of
Public Works.
The extension of Roripaugh Road, west of Winchester Road, shall be
constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 110.
An offset cul-de-sac shall be constructed at the terminus of Roripaugh Road in
accordance with City Standard 600(A).
The Temporary Access Road shall be constructed.
Six foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed along the Temporary Access Road
and Roripaugh Road in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the Developer; or, in the event
the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in
the Subdivision Map Act, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the
City for the acquisition of such easement at the Developer's cost pursuant to
Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City.
Dedicate a 36 foot wide easement for public utilities and emergency vehicles
access for all private streets and drives.
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:~STAFFRPT\157PA93.PC 4/28/94 sdl 31
87.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies
and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public
Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
88.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County
Flood Control District's transmittal dated April 4, 1994, a copy of which is
attached.
89.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated August 3,
1993, a copy of which is attached.
90.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the
Department of Transportation transmittal dated August 12, 1993, a copy of
which is attached.
91.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Municipal Water district transmittal dated August 16, 1993, a copy of which
is attached.
92. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
Water transmittal dated March 22, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
R:\STAFFRPT\157PA93,PC 4/28/94 gall 32
KENNETH L EDWARDS
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Ladies and Gentlemen:
RECEIVED
APR 0 5 15t9
Ans'd ...........
plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division o~ Re;J Estate letlets or other flood hazard reports for ax:~h cases. District
fadlities, other regional flood controt and drainage facilities which c~uld be considered a logical compcx~mt or extension of a masler plan system,
and District Area Drainage Ran fees (development mitigatiorl fees). In ~, informalion of a general nature is provided.
~ District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the fnilov~ng dr~ecked c:~nments do not in any way constitute or imply Distrk~
approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any othe~ such issue:
I'dThis project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Ran facilities nor are other facilities of rogio~al interest prol:x~sed.
']This project involves District Master Ran facilities. The District Will ~ ownership of such radiities on written request of the City. Facilities
must be oonstructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection Will be required for District acceptance. Ran check,
inspedion and administrative fees Will be required.
[~ This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter. er other facilities that could be considered rogionai in
' and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Ran. The District would comider accepting
ownership of such facilities on writtan request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan ched( and
inspedion will be required for District acceptance. Ran Ched(, ins~on and administrative fens Will be required.
'}This project is located Within the limits of the District's Area Drainage Plan for whioh drainage
fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid to the Rood Contrd District or City prior to finai approval of the project, or in the case
of a parcel map or subdivision prior to recordation of the final map. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of reoordation,
or if deferred, at the time of issuance of the actuai permit.
GFNERAI INFORMATION
This projed may require a Nationai Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval, should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a
permit or is shown to be exempt.
ff this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, theft the City should require the applicant to
provide all studies, calculations. plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant
obtain a Conditionai Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordatio~l or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.
If a naturaJ watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project the City should require the applicant to obtain a Sealion 160111603
Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Ac~ ,Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, or written correspondence from these agerides indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water ACt ,Section
404 Water Quaiity Certification may be required from the local Caiifomia Regional Water Quaiity Contrni Board prior to issuance of the Corps
404 permit.
~Q:)C DUSTY W|I IIAMS
J.M. HARRIS
FIRE CHIEF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE * PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 · (909) 657-3183
TO: Temecula Planning Department
ATTN: Saied Naaseh
RE: PA93-0157
August 3, 1993
With respect to the conditions of aporoval for the above refer-
enced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following
fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Riverside
County 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 o'f
delivering 2250 GF'M for a 2 hour duration at 20 F'St residual
omerating 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 hy-
drants. on a loooed system (6"x4"x2 i/2"x2 1/2"), will be
located not, less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any
oortion of the building as measured along approved vehicular
travelways. The required fire flow shall be available fr'om
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
i~ne with fire hydrants.
5. The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point
in the permit process to reflect changes in 0esign, con-
struction type, area separation or built-in fire protection
~l RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501
(9Q9) 2754777 · FAX (909) 369-7451
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION
PLANNING SECTION
~] [NDIO OFFICE
79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201
(619) 863-8886 * FAX (619) 863-7072
5. Applicant/developer shall furnish one co~¥ of the water
system plans to the Firs Department for rsview. Plans shall
confor~ to the fire hydrant types, 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 reOuirements prescribed by the Riverside County
Fire Department".
7. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all build-
ings. The post indicator valve and fire department connec-
[ion shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a
hydrant. and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A
statemen~ that the building(s) will be automatically fire
sprinkled must be included on tlne title page of ti~e building
plans.
jG- Aoplicant/developer shall be responsible to install a
fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval prior to installation.
9. A statement that the building will be automatically fire
sprinklered must a0orear on the title page of the building
plans.
10. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uni-
forn~ ~ui!d~ng Code, Section 503.
21. ?riot ~:s finial impseerier, of an'.~' building, the appii--
e, mp;.-covai, a site plan designating required fire lanes with
a~:,Orcip~-iate ].ane painting ar, d or signs.
.... ~,,~ portable fire extinguishers with a ,n~nimum
?~Z%. Appiicant/develooer shall be responsible for ol0tainini~
~nderground or abov'eg~ound permits from bo'th the County
Eea].'-~- ancj Fire De0artments.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the appli-
cant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or
mone.~ order in 'the amount c~f S558.00 to the Riverside County
F~re Department for plan check fees. Please reference Plan
Check Number with remittance.
25. Prior to the issuance is'f building permits, the develop-
er shall depoeit, wi~h the City of Temecuia, a check or
c~oney order equaling 'the sum of $.25 per souare foot as
mltlga'clon for fire protection impacts. This amount must be
submitEed separately from the plan check 'fees.
~+~. Final conOitions will be addressed when building plans
are reviewed in the building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be re-
ferred to the Planning and Engineering Staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
by~>~
Laura Cabral,
Fire Safety Specialist
Fire Captain Specialist
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402
TDD (909) 383-4609
August 12, 1993
Development Review
08-Riv-79-R3.45~
Your Reference:
PA 93-0157
RECEIVED
AUG ! 8 1993
Ans'd ............
Mr. Saied Naaseh
Planning Department
City of Temecula
City Hall
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed
Planning Application 93-0157 located northerly of Highway 79
(Winchester Road), between Margarita Road and Roripaugh Road
Temecula.
in
Please refer to the attached material on which our comments
have been indicated by the items checked and/or by those items
noted under additional comments.
If any work is necessary within the State highway right of
way, the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
Please be advised that this is a conceptual review only.
Final approval of street improvement, grading and drainage will
be determined during the Encroachment Permit process.
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Ahmad
Salah of our Development Review Section at (714) 383-5908.
Very truly yours,
G.A. LUNT
Branch Chief
Development Review
~(XJR REFERENCE
~ CHEI:XER
WE REQUEST THAT THE ITEMS CBECKE]
APPROVAL FOR THIS PROO'~CT:
HOltHAL RIGHT OF HAY DEDICATION TO PROVIDE
NONHAL STREET IlIPROVEI4ERTS TO PROVIDE
CURS AND GUTTER, STATE STANDARD
PROVIDE TO AFFLICANT
( CO RTE PM)
BELOW BE INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS OF
HALF--UIDTH ON THE STATE HIGNUAY,
HALF'UIDTH ON THE STATE HIGHMAY,
, TYPE A2-8 ALONG THE STATE HIGHklAY.
q~ARICING SHALL BE PROHIBITED ALONG THE STATE NIGHVAT BY THE PROPER PLACEMENT OF NO PARICING SIGNS.
35 F~T RADIUS CURB RETURNS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT INTERSECTIONS ~/ITH THE STATE HIGHVAYo STATE STANDARD
NSP A88, CASE-l% VAEELCHAZR RAJ4PS SHALl, BE PROVIDED IN THE CURB RETURNS AS DEFINED IN THE HIGHVAT
DESIGN HANUAL~, SECTION 105,4 (2).
A POSITIVE VEHZGULAR BARRIER ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO LINIT PHYSICAL ACCESS TO THE
STATE HIGINAY ,
__ 'VEHICULAR ACCESS SHALL NOT RE DEVELOPED DIRECTLY TO THE STATE HJGNUAY,
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGINAY SHALL BE PROVIDED BY EXISTING PUILIC I~ CONNECTIONS,
VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE STATE HIGHMAY SHALL BE PNQVIDRD BY STANDARD DRIVEMATS,
'VENICUI.4R A,---',.--- $NN.L NOT RE PROVIDED k/ITHIN OF THE ]HTE]ISECTIGN AT
'VEHICUL.NR ACCESS CONNECTIONS SHALL RE PAV~ AT LEAST kfITHZN THE STATE NIGINAy RIGHT OF MAY,
_ ~. o,,-s. TE ,1., ,'A,,..S AND ,,.l,,,.,., ,'ND--.,E ,,.'.CTS __ .,,..,..
Pt. EASE REFER TO ATTACHED ADDITIONAL Cl)N4ENTG, PROVIDE TO APPLICANT,
PLEASE BE JnVISED THAT THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL PaVI~W ONLY. FINAL APPROVAL WILL
BE DETERMIlleD DURING TEl ~NCROI%~;.wmNT I~ERMIT PROCESS.
THE FOI,LOWXNG 'rTF, M~ ~ APP'r. ZCJaLE TO LOCAL AGENCY PT.~swNEItI/~'NGINE~I!~
CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION glTHIN PRESENT 011 PN~'~j~-ED STATE RIGHT OF MAY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED FOIl POTENTIAL
HAZARDOUS HASTE ( 1 o E ,, ASBESTOS ~, pETROCHEMICAL$ p ETC o ) AND MITIGATED AS PER BEOUIRENENT$ OF HEGULATOSY AGENCIES
WHEN PLANS ARE SUBMITTEDt PLEASE CONFOIU4 TO THE REOUIREHEMTS OF THE ATTACHED IIPL%NDOLITII, THIS U1LL EXPEDITE
THE REVIEV PROCESS AND TIE REOUIRED FOIl PLAN CHECK, PROVIDE TO APPLICANT.
__ ALTHOUGH THE TRAFFIC ~NI)/OS DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PR~,~AL DO NOT APPEAR TO GAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
ON THE STATE HIGINAY SYSTEMs. CONSZDERATIOS flUST BE GIVEN TO THE CLI4ULATIVE EFFECT OF CONTIHLIED DEVELOPHENT
IN THIS AREA, ANY BEASURES NECESSARY TO MITIGATE THE C~IBJLATIV~ IMPACT OF TRAFFIC AND/OS DRAINAGE SHALL HE
PROVIDED PRIOR TO OR gZTH DEVELOPiq';NT OF THE ANEA THAT NECESSITATES THEM,
__ COSSIDEEATIOS SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISIONS OR FLITIRE PROVISION;. OF SlGEILIEATIOS AND LIGHTING OF THE
IHT~-~"TlCll Of: A~, ~ STA~, HiG}B~Y banal ~ ARE ~.
IT APPEARS THAT THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE GENERATED BY THIS PRGK.~AL COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT O~
THE STATE HIGHgAY SYSTEM OF THE AREA, ANY MEASUIIES TO MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC AND/OR DRAINAGE IMPACTS SHALL BE
INCLUDED gITH THE DEVELOPHENTo
THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHVAY IS INCLUDED IN THE CALIFORNIA MASTER PLAN OF STATE HIGNVAY5 ELIGIBLE FOR
OFFICIAL SCENIC HIGHVAY DESIGNATION AND IN THE FUTORE YOUR AGENCY MAY gISH TO HAVE THiS ROUTE OFFICIALLY
DESIGNATED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGI~AY,
THIS PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHMAY HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DESIGIL%TED AS A STATE SCENIC HIGINAY;. AS~ DE~
IN THIS C~RZOOIR SHOULD BE COI;'ATIBLE gITH THE SCENIC NIGHMAY UDI~PT,
EMT
IT I$ RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS C61SIDEBABLE R.IILIC ~ AIOI,'T NOIRE LEVELI AOJACEMT TO HEAVILY TRAVELLED
HIGN~YS, X. AND OEV[LOPHENT~ IN OSDER TO SE Cl)I~ATIBLE V]TI THIS COilC~Ul~ I~Y REOUIRE MCIAL NOISE ATTENUATION
HEA$~JeES, DEVELCR4EIIT OF THIS PRa~TY EMOULO 11113.t~ NIY I!.C!.IHAIff IIOIBE ATTIgJATIGII,
PLEASR 8SND T][B ZT~M2 unasCl~D BELOW
CALTI~NS DiSTaZCT 8
DEVELOPleT RSVIEV BRANCH
P.O. Box 231
SAN Br:RNAGDINO, CA 92402
A coPY OF ANY DOCIJHENTS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL STATE HIGNgAY RIGHT OF gAY UPON RECC~DATZOS OF THE NAP.
#
ANY PROPOSALS TO FURTHER CEVELOR THIS PROPERTY.
A COPY OF THE TRAFFIC OR ENVIRONHENTAL SI'~Yo
CHECK PRINT OF THE PARCEL OR TRACT PAP,
CHECK PRINT OF THE PLANS FOR ANY II4PROVENENTS UITHIN OR NDJACENT TO THE STATE HIGMY RIGHT OF
CHECK PRINT OF THE GRN)ING AND DRAINAGE PLANS FIR THIS P[t~F, ERTY WIEN AVAILABLE,
4
L t r. M..icip l V(at er
SIDE
August 16,
1993
Bodrd o/D,,ecton
Chester C. Gilbert. President
Wm. G Aidridge. Vice Pres.ient
Craxg A. Weaver
Marion ~ Ashley
Rodget D. Siems
RECEIVED
Saied Naaseh, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Temecula Valley Unified School
Facility (PA 93-0157)
District
AU6 18 19 3
Ans'd ............
Operations
Dear Mr. Naaseh::
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 5.4 acre
transportation/maintenance/operations facility, located adjacent to
the Santa Gertrudis Creek channel, approximately 500 ft north of
Margarita Rd.
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.
The developer must arrange for the preparation of a detailed plan
of service. The detailed plan of service will indicate the
location(s) and size(s) of system improvements to be made by the
developer (or others), and which are considered necessary in order
to provide adequate levels of service. To arrange for the
preparation of a plan of service, the developer should submit
information describing the subject project to the District's
Customer Service Department, (909) 925-7676, extension 409, as
follows:
1. Written request for a "plan of service".
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto · Customer Service/Engineering Armex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hernet, CA
Saied Naaseh
PA 93-0157
August 16, 1993
Page 2
Minimum $400.00 deposit (larger deposits may be required
for extensive development projects or projects located in
"difficult to serve" geographic areas).
Plans/maps describing the exact location and nature of
the subject project. Especially helpful materials
include grading plans and phasing plans.
Sanitary Sewer
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF).
The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the
subject project are as follows:
15-inch diameter sewer aligned along Winchester Rd. between
Margarita and Nicolas Rds.
Recently constructed collector sewer aligned along Margarita
Rd., west of Winchester Rd. and crossing the Santa Gertrudis
Creek. (Note, this sewer has not been placed in-service as of
this date.)
Other Issues
The representative of the subject project must contact the
District's Customer Service Department to arrange for a plan check
and field inspection of onsite plumbing.
ShDuld you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel
free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, extension 468.
Very truly yours,
David G. Crosley
DGC/cz
AB 93-869
(wp-ntwk-PA930157.ch)
F
March 22, 1994
Mr. Saied Naaseh
City of Temecula.
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
· ',
NAR 2 9 1394
SUBJECT:
Water Availability
Maintenance, Operations, Transportation (MOT) Facility
Teraecula Valley Unified School District
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
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
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
SB:SD:mg15/F18~
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/28/94 ed] 33
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002
',HIBIT: A
f'.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/26/94 sdl
-- CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002
EXHIBIT: B
P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
ZONING MAP
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/26/64 sdl
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002
(HIBIT: C
f'.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
SITE PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT\157PA63.PC 4/26/94
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
LANDSCAPE PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT\157PA93.PC 4/26/94
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002
',HIBIT: E
H.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.pC 4/28/94 sdl
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002
EXHIBIT: F
P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFRPT~157PA93.PC 4/26/94
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002
~HIBIT: G
P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
FLOOR PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT\I57PA93.PC 4/26/94 sd]
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: PA93-0157 AND PA94-0002
EXHIBIT: H
P.C. DATE: MAY 2, 1994
OVERALL SITE PLAN
R:\STAFFRPTVi57PA93.pC 4/26194
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
R:\STAFFRPT\q57PA93.PC 4/28194 sdl ;34-
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVEFAIlDING
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING ~ FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(STATE CI.E4kRINGHOUSE NUMBER 93092023)
FOR ThE TEMECULA V,aT,T,EY UN~IED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
MAINTENANCE, OPERATIONS AND TRANSPORTATION FACII.ITY
(PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0002)
The City of Temecula (the "City") hereby certifies the Temecula Valley Unified
School District, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Fedllty, Final
Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse Number 93092023, which consists
of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR, the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, these Findings of Fact, the Staff Report and any associated
attachments (collectively referred to as the "Final EIR"), and finds that it has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resource Cede Section 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") and that the City of Temecula has
received, reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, all
hearings, and submissions of testimony from officials and Departments of the City,
the Applicant, the public and other municipalities and agencies.
Having received, reviewed and considered the foregoing information, as well as
any and all information in the record, the City of Temecula hereby makes these
Findings of Fact pursuant to, and in accordance with Section 21081 of the Public
Resource Code as follows:
BACKGROUND
The Temecula Valley Unified School District, Maintenance, Operations and
Transportation Facility (the "proposed project")involves of a total of 24,399 interior
square feet for various transportation, admiuistrative and maintenance activities.
Storage space wffi also be provided for 40 school buses and 75 maintenance vehicles
as well as a fuel and wash island for District vehicles.
The transportation pertion of the facility will involve 10,863 square feet of
space for six bus repair bays with associated repair and storage areas. Surrounding
the transportation pertion of the fsdlity are the 40 bus storage stalls. Although
storage will be provided for 40 buses, the Temecula Valley Unified School District
anticipates that a maximum of 29 buses will be operational at any one time. During
the morning hours, a maximum of 29 buses out of the 40-bus fleet will be in
operation. After noon, a maximum of 10 buses wffi be in operation. Buses will warm
up and depart the site at staggered times within these periods.
The administration portion of the facility will involve 5,939 interior square feet
of office space for District administrative functions and wffi generally operate between
the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
The maintenance portion of the proposed facility consists of 6,035 square feet
of repair shops performing plumbing, heating/air conditioning repair, carpentry,
electrical, locksmith, irrigation and landscape maintenance functions. This portion
of the facility will be operational between the hours of 6:45 am. and 3:30 p.m. An
additional 1,562 square feet of common area containing compressors, lubrication and
welding equipment will also be provided. A fuel and wash island wffi be included on-
site to serve District vehicles. Dispensing facih'ties for compressed and natural gas of
use in motor vehicles is being considered for the fuel island.
In addition to the 40 bus storage stalls noted above, the proposed
transportation, administration and maintenance facility will also contain 75 paricing
spaces for maintenance vehicles, 10 visitor parking stalls adjacent to the
administration portion of the proposed fadlity and a separate, outdoor storage area
for lawn mowers and other landscape equipment. The proposed project is anticipated
to involve a total of approximately 96 employees at the initiation of operations in 1994
which will increase to 116 employees by the year 2010.
In addition to certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, the City
of Temecula must approve a Conditional Use Permit (Planning Application 93-0157)
for the proposed project.
The City of Temecula circulated copies of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for
the proposed project in September, 1993 to all Responsible Agencies and interested
groups and individuals stating that a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) wffi
be prepared. Various agencies and individuals provided written comments within the
State-mandated 30 day public review period for the NOP. These written comments
discussed the scope and content of information to be contained within the Draft EIR.
Copies of these comments on the NOP are contained within Appendix A of the Draft
EIR.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Temecula Valley
Unified School District, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility was
initially submitted to the City of Temecula on September 27, 1993.
During the months of September, 1993 through February, 1994 and subsequent
to the public review of the Notice of Preparation, the City of Temecula internally
reviewed "screencheck" copies of the Draft EIR. Upon completion of this review,
copies of the Draft EIR were forwarded to all Responsible Agencies and intorested
groups and individuals. As was also the case for the Notice of Preparation, the Draft
EIR was forwarded to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to and review by
various involved State agencies. The State-mandated 45-day public review of the
Draft EIR began on February 22, 1994 and ended on April 8, 1994. A Responses to
Comments package has been prepared which presents written responses to comments
received as a result of the pubhc review of the Draft EIR. This Responses to
Comments package is included as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
An Initial Study for the Temecula Valley Unified School District, Maintenance,
Operations and Transportation Facility was prepared by the City of Temecula on
August 27, 1993, which identified potential environmental impacts attributable to the
proposed project. These potential impacts include: Seismic Safety; Slopes and
Erosion; Noise; Climate and Air Quality; Circulation; Hydrology; Water Quality; Risk
of Upset; Cultural and Scientific Resources; W~dlifeNegetation; Land Use; Toxic
Substances; Aesthetics/Light and Glare; Natural and Energy Resources; Public
Facilities and Services (water and sewer, fire protection, police protection, utilities and
solid waste); Growth-Inducing Impacts and Cumulative Impacts. In addition, the
Initial Study identified the necessity to analyze Project Alternatives and provide a
Mitigation Monitoring Program. As a result of the Initial Study, it was determined
that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required.
The Final EIR analyzed both project and cumulative effects of the potential
environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study. The Final EIR developed and
identified a variety of mitigation measures to minimize, reduce, avoid or compensate
for the potential adverse effects of the proposed project.
The Final EIR also discussed a number ofpetential alternatives to the proposed
project, including the: 1) the No Project Alternative; 2) the Commercial Land Use
Alternative; 3) the Business Park Land Use Alternative; and 4) Alternate Project
Sites.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review by the
City of Temecula between the dates of February 22, 1994 and April 8, 1994 in
cenformance with Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines. This 45-day
public review period (per Section 15087 (c) of State CEQA Guidelines) resulted in the
receipt of comments from a variety of governmental agencies and other responsible
parties. Responses to'the cerements received regarding the proposed project and the
Draft EIR were prepared, and then reviewed and revised by City staff. This
Responses to Comments package is included in the Final EIR.
Public hearings will be held on the project proposal and its associated
environmental impacts by the City of Temecula prior to the certification of the Final
EIR.
The City of Temecula makes the foliowing findings in adopting a Resolution
certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report. Section I of these Findings
contains the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Section 2 discusses those
potential environmental effects of the proposed project which are not significant or
which have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. Section 3 discusses the
significant unavoidable environmental effects of the proposed project which cannot be
feasibly mitigated to a level of insignificance. Section 4 discusses the growth-inducing
impacts of the proposed project. Section 5 discusses the alternatives to the proposed
project discussed in the Final EIR. Section 6 discusses the Mitigation MOnitoring
Progrnm for the proposed project. Section 7 contains the Section 15091 and 15092
findings. The findings set forth in each section are supported by substantial evidence
in the sdministrative record of the proposed project. Appendix A to this Findings
package contains a copy of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the proposed
project.
SECTION 1
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Final EIR identffied and discussed significant effects which will occur as
a result of the proposed project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures
discussed in the Final EIR, these effects can be mitigated to levels of insignificance
except for project-related unavoidable significant impacts in the areas of Seismic
Safety, Climate and Air Quality, Hydrology and Land Use as identified in Section 3
of these Findings.
Having reduced the effects of the proposed project by adopting Conditions of
Approval and monitored mitigation measures and having balanced the benefits of the
proposed project against the proposed project's potential unavoidRhle adverse impacts,
the City of Temecula hereby determines that the benefits of the proposed project
outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts, and that the unavoidable adverse
impacts are nonetheless "acceptable" based on the following Overriding
Considerations:
1. The proposed project wffi assist and enhance the operations of the
Temecula Valley Unified School District through the construction of a combined
Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility. As such, transportation,
administrative and maintenance functions will be integrated into one site.
2. This centrally-located facility will most efficiently serve the
transportation, administrative and maintenance needs of the School District and its
students.
3. The proposed project wffi be required to construct all required on- and
off-site infrastructure improvements in a coordinated fashion which is consistent with
surrounding land uses.
4. On-site fueling facilities will be designed to provide for the oppertnnlty
in the future for the dispensing of alternate fuels (compressed natural gas) for District
and other government vehicles in the future. Availability of these alternate fuels will
reduce the reliance upon petroleum fuels and the associated air pollution impacts.
5. During the life of the project, it is anticipated that an additional 20
employment opportunities will be generated. These jobs are in addition to the
existing number of employees who will be working on-site at the initiation of project
operations.
SECTION 2
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH ARE NOT
SIGNIFICANT OR WHICH HAVE BEEN MITIGATED
TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
All Final EIR mitigation measures (as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program attached as Appendix A to these Findings) have been incorporated by
reference into the Conditions of Approval for the proposed Temecula Valley Unified
School District, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Fs~ility.
The City of Temecula has determined that these mitigation measures and
Conditions of Approval will result in a substantial mitigation of the following effects
and that these effects are not considered signffie~nt or they have been mitigated to
a level of insigni~nce. The mitigation measures referred to below are contained
within the Mitigation Monitoring Progrnm which is attached as Appendix A to these
Findings.
Seismic Safety
Potential Imnact: The site wffi be impacted by seismic activity along the Wildomar
fault which is located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the project. It is
estimated that a 7.5 earthquake along the Elsinore fault zone could create a maximum
peak ground acceleration on-site of 0.70g.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures i and 2 within Section
A. Seismic Safety of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified
impacts.
Slooes and Erosion
Potential Imnact: Development of the site will require alteration of the existing land-
form and minimal cut and ~l operations. The proposed grading plan results in an
estimated 30,700 cubic yards of cut and 85,300 cubic yards of fill.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignfficant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1,2 and 4 within
Section B. Slopes and Erosion of the Mitigation Monitoring ProgrAm will mitigate the
identffied impact.
Potential Imnact: Slope erosion on-site is a significant concern regarding surticial
stability. All cut and fill slopes will be planted with erosion resistant vegetation and
other protective devices.
Findin2s: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 3 within Section B.
Slopes and Erosion of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified
impact.
Noise
Potential Imnact: Construction noise represents a short-term impact on ambient
noise levels.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incerporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identffied in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section C.
Noise of the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified impacts.
Potential Imnact: Bus operations and associated noise levels, based upon an actual
start up/departure session, was measured at several off-site locations. At these
locations, bus noise levels compiled with the Model Noise Ordinance in that 55 dBA
was not exceeded.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: No additional mitigation measures required.
Potential Imnact: Traffic noise impacts associated with the proposed project are less
than 0.2 dBA or less. Noise increases less than 1.0 dBA wffi not be discernable to
local residents. (Noise increases greater than 3.0 dBA are considered significant.)
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignffie~nt level.
Facts: No additional mitigation measures required.
Potential Ironact: An estimated 0.06 tons of particulate emissions per day will be
released as a result of dust generated by construction equipment and winds during the
grading phase and site preparation of the project.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 through 19 within
Section D. Climate and Air Quality of the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi
mitigate the identified impact.
Potential Imnact: The project will generate long-term impacts which include mobile
emissions resulting from the estimated 10,000 daily vehicle miles traveled as well as
stationary emissions resulting from the consnmption of electridty and natural gas.
The long-term pollutant generation associated with the proposed project is not
considered "signfficant' by the SCAQMD.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 20 through 23 within
Section D. Chinate and Air Quality of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will
mitigate the identified impact.
Circulation
Potential Impact: The proposed project will generate an estimated 1,000 trips per
day. Of this total, 100 trips are morning peak hour trips and 110 trips are evening
peak hour trips. The proposed project is planned to take its primary access from
Margarita Road. This interim access wffi be dosed once the future Chaparral High
School is operational. The addition of project traffic does not alter the Level of
Service at any of the impacted intersections. The intersections of Winchester
Road/Nicelas Road and Winchester Road/Roripaugh Road are currently operating at
Level of Service "1~' during the evening peak hour and existing volumes meet the
warrants for signalization. The level of traffic activity at the project site will be the
same as that at the existing site on Rancho Vista Road and therefore no net increase
in areawide traffic wffi occur.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 within
Section E. Circulation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the
identified impact.
H.vdroloav
Potential Imnact: The development and construction phase of the project will
potentially create short-term impacts related to erosion and sedimentation due to the
creation of exposed soils during project grading.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section F.
Hydrology of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identffied impacts:
Potential Imvact: The development phase of the project will create impermeable
surfaces (parking lots, bus storage areas, roofs, etc.) thereby increasing on-site runoff.
Increased site runoff, as well as upstream surface flows, will be accommodated by the
proposed drainage system. The increased flow rates from the project wffi
incrementally contribute to cumulatively increased flow rates downstream primarily
to Murrieta Creek and the potential for flooding in downstream areas conWining
undersized facilities. On-site flood hazards associated with the adjacent Santa
Gertrudis Creek have been eliminated with recent channel improvements.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 within Section
F. Hydrology of the' Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified
impacts.
Water Quality
Potential Imvact: Project development will alter the composition of surface runoffby
grading site surfaces, construction of impervious streets, roofs and parking facilities,
and by irrigation of landscaped areas. Runoff entering the storm drain system will
contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, including pesticides,
fertilizers, oil and rubber residues, detergents, hydrocarbon particles and other debris.
This runoff, typical of urban use, will contribute to the incrementally increased
degradation of water quality downstream.
Findin2s: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final ]~IR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 through 3 within
Section G. Water Quality of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the
identified impacts:
Risk of Upset
Potential Impact: Development of the proposed project will include provision of
maintenance facilities, repair shops, and a fuel and wash island, all of which are part
of the maintenance portion of the proposed project. In addition, the transportation
portion of the proposed project will include six bus repair areas. These functions may
involve the storage and use of hazardous materials. As such, the project has the
potential for the risk of explosion and/or the release of hazardous substances.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section H.,
Risk of Upset of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified
impact.
Cultural and Scientific Resources
Potential Impact: Possible adverse impact to the Pauba Formation which is of
"Moderate" to "High" paieontological sensitivity, may occur as a result of project
development. No archaeological sites have been observed with project boundaries,
however, potential impacts to t/nlcnowll cultural resources may occur.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
Final EIR to an insignfficant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 through3 within
Section I. Cultural and Scientific Resources the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi
mitigate the identified impact.
Wildlife and Veeetation
Potential Imvact: Construction activities wffi remove introduced grassland habitat
through cut and fffi and other grading operations thereby resulting in the direct loss
of this habitat and less mobile wi]dllfe forms. Impacts resulting from vegetation loss
affects the wildlife associated with that vegetation by either destroying it or displacing
it to adjacent habitat. Additional impacts to wildlife results from increasing
harassment from cats, dogs, children, light and glare, background noise and excessive
construction related noises. Conversion of the on-site introduced grassland community
to development will reduce areawide foraging habitat for raptors.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section J.
Wildlife and Vegetation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the
ident'Lfied impacts.
Toxic Substances
Potential Imnact: There is n0 evidence that on-site soils pose any hazard to future
use of the subject property. Development of the proposed project will include the
provision of maintenance facilities, repair shops and a fuel and wash island, all of
which are part of the maintenance portion of the proposed facility. In addition, the
transportation portion of the proposed facility wffi include six bus repair areas. These
functions may involve the storage and use of toxic substances.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identffied in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 within Section
L. Toxic Substances of the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified
impacts.
Aesthetics/Light and Glare
Potential Imnact: Project development will permanently alter the nature and
appearance of the project site from its current open space use to the land uses
proposed. The currently degraded nature of the project site reduces these aesthetic
impacts to a level of insignificance. The project site is well set back from Winchester
Road (approximately 430 feet to the east) well outside the required 50 foot Scenic
Highway setback. The site itself does not contain nor will proposed development
block any scenic vistas which merit preservation. The project site lies within the 30
mile Special Lighting Area of the Mt. Palomar Observatory.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures I and 2 within Section
M. Aesthetics/Light and Glare of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the
identffied impacts.
Natural and Energy Resources
Potential Imnact: On-site natural gas demand is est'nnated to be 48,798 cubic feet per
month. On-site electricity consumption is estimated to be 214,711 kilowatt hours per
year. The proposed project will result in the consumption of 667 gallons of gasoline
per day of which 384 gallons is estimated to be diesel fuel.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section N.
Energy and Natural Resources of the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the
identified impacts.
Water and Sewer Service
Potential Imnact: Project development will increase the demand on water and sewer
service in the area The total average day demand for the project is estimated at
233,911 gallons. The project wffi require on-site water lines connecting to exist'nag
facilities in Winchester Read in order to provide water service to the site. The project
is anticipated to generate an average daily demand of 19,926 gallons per day of
wastewater. Sewer lines wffi be extended from existing lines in Winchester Read to
serve the site. EMWD wffi require the project to construct reclaimed water lines on-
site so that when the regional system, which is currently in the planning process, is
complete, the project can utilize reclaimed water for specific irrigation purposes.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact ident'Lf~ed in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding iS made in that Mitigation Measures 1 through 4 within
Section O. 1, Water and Sewer of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the
ident'Lf~ed impacts.
Fire Protection
Potential Impact: Project development will increase the demand upon existing fire
protection services. These impacts are due to the increase in emergency or public
service calls generated by project development
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within SectiOn 0.2,
Fire Protection of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the ident'Lfied
impacts. .
Police Pro~efion
Potential Imnact: The addition of maintenance, operations and transportation
facilities will result in minimunl additional demand for additional police protection
services generally related to occasional burglary or vandalism calls.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identffied in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section 0.8,
Police Protection of the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi mitigate the identified
impacts.
Utilities
Potential Ironact: Project development will place additionnl demand on existing
electrical supplies. The project is estimated to utilize 214,711 kilowatt hours (kwh) of
electricity per year. The demand for natural gas will also increase with project
development. The project is estimated to consume 48,798 cubic feet of natural gas per
month. The proposed project will place additional demand upon phone service. The
proposed project falls within the existing service capabilities of the involved utility
agencies.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Final EIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 1 within Section 0.4,
Utilities of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
Solid Waste
Potential Imnact: Project development will increase the amount of solid waste
generated on-site, which in turn will increase the demand upon waste haulers serving
the area. The proposed project is anticipated to generate 244 pounds of solid waste
per day.
Findings: Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
Final l~,IR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 within Section
0.5, Solid Waste of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified
impact. :
SECTION 3
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH
CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
The City has determined that certain environmental effects cannot be feasibly
or objectively mitigated to a level of insigni6icance although the Final EIR contains
mitigation measures and Conditions of Approval imposed on the proposed project wffi
provide a substantial mitigation of these effects. Consequently, in accordance with
Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations has been prepared (See Section i of this Findings package) to
substantiate the City's decision to accept these unavoidable adverse environmental
effects because of the benefits afforded by the proposed project. The mitigation
measures referred to below are contained within the Mitigation Monitoring Program
which is attached as Appendix A to these Findings.
Seismic Safety
Potential Imnact: Since the project site lies within the dam inundation area for
Skinner Reservoir Dam, it may be subject to seismically-induced flooding from dam
failure.
Findings: The impact identified in the Final EIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance in spite of the mitigation measure related to adherence to the "Report
on Flood Warning and Evacuation for the Proposed Chaparral High School Site in the
Event of Breach of the West Dam of Domenigoni Reservoir" (see Responses to
Comments package within Final Environmental Impact Report). However, Conditions
of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the
proposed project will reduce, to the extent feasible, the adverse environmental effect.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1 of this Findings package).
Climate and Air Quality
Potential Impact: Nitrogen oxides emissions during project construction will exceed
SCAQMD thresholds.
Findings: The impact identified in the Final EIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project will reduce, to the extent feasible, the
adverse environmental effect.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1 of this Findings package)
and that Mitigation Measures 9 through 19 within Section D. Air Quality of the
Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi partially mitigate the identified impacts.
Hvdrolo~/
Potential Imnact: Since the project site lies within the dam inundation area for
Skinner Reservoir, it may be subject to seismically-induced flooding from dam failure.
Findings: The impact identified in the Final EIR c~nnot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project will reduce, to the extent feasible, the
adverse environmental effect.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section i of this Findings package).
No additional mitigations are proposed for this significant impact.
Land Use
Potential Imnact: Project development will result in the transition in land use from
open space to the proposed project, as well as resulting in the permanent loss of
future agriculture productivity on "Prime Agricultural Land."
Findings: The impact identified in the Final EIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1 of this Findings package).
No additional mitigation measures are proposed for this significant impact.
SECTION 4
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126(g) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires considerations of the
ways that the proposed project could be considered growth-inducing.
As the proposed project is located in an area undergoing rapid urbanization and
is generally surrounded by future urban uses, significant growth-inducing impacts are
difficult to foresee.
Several land development proposals have been prepared for vacant a~acent
properties, therefore, the proposed project is not considered growth-inducing to these
surrounding areas. These surrounding project proposals include the Winchester Hills,
Temecula Regionsl Center and CAmpos Verdes Spec'Lf'~c Plans. The proposed project
can be considered growth-accommodating, as it wffi provide improved services from
the Temecula Valley Unified School District from a centrally-located functionally-
combined facility. With the exception of minor utilities extensions, the necessary
infrastructure is in place to serve the project.
SECTION 5
FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives to the proposed project desm-ibed in the Finnl EIR were considered.
The alternatives discussed in the Final EIR constitute a reasonable range of potontial
options necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The Final EIR identified the "No
Project" alternative as the environmentally superior alternative; however, the City did
not select any of the proposed project alternatives but approved the proposed project
with the mitigation measures from the Final EIR which wffi provide a substantial
mitigation of the potential environmental effects. Consequently, in accordance with
Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations has been prepared (See Section 1 of this Findings package) to
substantiate the City's decision to reject the environmentally preferred alternatives
because of the benefits afforded by the proposed project.
Alternative 1 - The "No Project" Alternative
Descrintion of Alternative: The Final EIR describes the "No Project" Alternative as
a continuation of existing undeveloped conditions supporting passive open space uses.
Comparison of Effects: The "No Project" Alternative would ehminate the
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. These impacts include:
grading impacts and associated impacts upon landform, geology, hydrology, etc.; traffic
impacts and associated air quality and noise impacts; biological impacts related to
disruption of wildlife; and impacts related to provision of public services and utilities.
This Alternative also retains existing passive open space uses on-site, at least for the
short-term.
Finding: The "No Project" alternative is not feasible as this alternative fa~s to meet
project the objectives identified in the Final EIR or to provide any of the benefits set
forth herein.
Facts: The above Finding is made in that it has been determined that this alternative
would negate the benefits associated with the primary project objective of assisting
and enhancing the maintenance, operations, and transportation functions of the
Temecula Valley Unified School District. Due to the site's location within a
developing urban areas, the project site's City General Plan designation for urban
uses and the availability of public utffities serving the ares, long-term undeveloped or
future agricultural use of the project site is not considered likely nor logical.
Alternative 2 - Commercial Land Use
Descrintion of Alternative: The Commercial Land Use Alternative considers
development of the site for commercial land uses pursuant to the City of Temecula,
General Plan (B-P, Business Park) and Zoning (R-R, Rural Residential) designations
for the project site. Future development within the Commercial Land Use Alternative
is assumed to involve approximately 100,000 square feet of interior space for
commercial use.
Comnarison of Effects: This Alternative would have seismic safety and slopes and
erosion impacts which are similar to those associated with the project proposal.
Impacts to hydrology and water quality are anticipated to be greater with this
Alternative as compared to the proposed project due to the increased number of
customers associated with commercial land uses. This Alternative would generate
5,314 daily vehicle trips, a 431% increase as compared to vehicular traffic levels
associated with the project proposal. Similar increased in noise and air quality
impacts are also anticipated with this Alternative. This Alternative would result in
the loss of passive open space uses and would preclude the future use of the site for
agricultural purposes. Similar wildlife/vegetation and cultural and scientific resource
impacts are anticipated to occur with this Alternative as compared to the project
proposal. Increased fire and police protection demands as well as utilities and solid
waste demands are anticipated with this Alternative as compared to the proposed
project. Water and sewer demands of this Alternative are similar to those associated
with the proposed project.
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and the Commercial Land Use Alternative, the City did not select this Alternative.
However, Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project, as described in Sections 2 and 3 of this
Findings package, wffi substantially lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed
project.
Facts: The Commercial Land Use Alternative was rejected in favor of the proposed
project for the following reasons. This Alternative results in increased impacts in the
areas of hydrology, traffic, noise, air quality and certain public facilities and utilities
and is, therefore, not considered to be "environmentally superior" to the current
development proposal. Also, this Alternative would eliminate public benefits
associated with the project, including the assisting and enhancing the operations of
the Temecula Valley Unified School District.
Alternative 3 - Business Park Land Use Alternative
Descrintion of Alternative: The Business Park Land Use Alternative involves
development of business park uses on the project site. It is assumed that the site
would be developed with approximately 145,000 square feet of interior space for
business park land uses.
Comnarison of Effects: Impacts of this Alternative associated with seismic safety,
slopes and erosion, hydrology and water quality, open space and conservation,
wild]ire/vegetation, and cultural and scientific resources, would be similar to those
associated with the proposed project. This Alternative would generate 18,850 daily
vehicle trips, a 1,755% increase as compared to vehicular traffic levels associated with
the project proposal. Similar increases in noise and air quality impacts are also
anticipated with this Alternative.
This Alternative would also increase the impacts associated with pohce and fire
protection, energy consnmption and solid waste generation. Water and sewer
demands of this Alternative are similar to those associated with the proposed project.
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and the Business Park Land Use Alternative, the City did not select this Alternative.
However, Conditions of Approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project, as described in Sections 2 and 3 of this
Findings package, will substantially lessen the environmental impacts of the proposed
project.
Facts: The Business Park Land Use Alternative was rejected in favor of the proposed
project for the following reasons. This Alternative results in significantly increased
impacts in the area of traffic, noise and air quality. This Alternative is not, therefore,
considered "environmentally superior". This Alternative also negates the public
benefits associated with the project including assisting and enhancing the operations
of the Temecula Valley Unified School District. This Alternative could also result in
land use conflicts with surrounding commercial and residential land uses.
Alternative 4- Alternative Sites
Descrintion of Alternative: The Temecula Valley Unified School District considered
in deta~ several alternative site locations in the process of selecting the currently-
proposed project location. These alternative project site locations include: 1) a parcol
at Margarita Road and Pauba Road; 2) the Rancho California Water District Building
on Diaz Road; and 3) a parcol at Rancho Vista Road across the street from the
existing School District Offices.
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and various Alternative Sites, the City did not select any of these Alternatives.
Project development at Margarita Road and Pauba Road would result in increased
impacts in the areas of surrounding land use compatibility, project grading, air
quality, aesthetics, and relocation of off-site utilities. This site is also less than the
ideal size for the proposed project facilities. Project development at the Rancho
California Water District Building on Diaz Road would result in longer routes and
potential delays for District busses due to this site's location on the west side of
Interstate 15. This alternate site is also subject to flooding from Murrieta Creek and
is also smaller than the ideal size for the proposed project facilities. Project
development at Rancho Vista Road across from the existing School District offices
would remove parking from the Temecula High School stadi.m~ create potential
surrounding land use incompatibilities, and result in potential aesthetic impacts and
would result in the placement of transportation and maintenance/operations functions
of the School District in different locations.
Facts: These Alternative sites were rejected in favor of the proposed project location
because project development at these Alternate sites would result in increased
environmental impacts as summarized above.
SECTION 6
FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Cede requires that when a public
agency is mAk-ln5 the Findings required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)
(1), cedified as Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Cede, the public agency shall
adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the proposed project
which it has adopted or made a Condition of Approval, in order to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment.
The City of Temecula hereby finds and accepts that the Mitigation Monitoring
Program~ which is attached as Appendix A to this Findings package, meets the
requirements of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Cede by providing for the
implementation and monitoring of project conditions intended to mitigate potential
environmental impacts.
SECTION
SECTION 15091 AND 15092 FINDINGS
Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record,
the City of Temecula has made one or more of the following findings with respect to
the significant effects of the proposed project:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid many of the signfficant
environmental effects thereof as identffied in the Final EIR.
Some changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such
other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make feasible the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record,
and as conditioned by the foregoing findings:
All significant effects on the environment due to the proposed project
have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible (see
Sections 2 and 3 of this Findings package).
Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be
unavoidable are acceptable due to the overriding concerns set forth in
the foregoing Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Section 1 of
this Findings package).
APPENDIX A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAFFRPTV57PA93.PC 4/28/94 edl 35
6
0
Z
o z .!
8
8
Z
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
PUBLIC COMMENTS
R:\STAFFRPT%157PA93,pC 4/28/94 edl 36
TO:
FROM:
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
RECEIVED
MAR 11
DATE:
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT. ~,~)
AI'IN: SaiedNaaseh ~:
JOHN SlLVA, P.E.,Semor Public Health Enginecr, I~parUnent otEnvironn~ental Hcalth
~fTCEMECULA VALLEY UNIFORM SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION,
ADMINISTRATIVE AND MAIN!'I~NANCE FACILITY - DRAFT EIR
1454TER/SEWER: (John C. Silva, P.E. Senior Public Health Enlfineer). Denartment of Environmental
Health
The 6.642 acre site will be receiving its 23,911 gallons per day of domestic water from Rancho California Water
District. A total of 19.926 gallons per day of sewage is estimated from the project which will be treated at the
Eastern Municipal Water District plant in Temecula.
Use ofRECLAIMED WATER is mentioned but not f~lly explored for project implementation. Should a dual
plumbing system be used to iragate the landscape and shrubbery, enough fresh water would be saved and made
available to serve about 50 homes or families. In the reclaimed business, a project such as this is the ideal LL~e of
project for dual uses of water. The dual system would be designed by a Registered Civil Engineer with
review/approval by the Riverside County. Health Department.
SOLID WASTE: Chuck Strev, P.E., Civil En2ineer, Denartment of Environmental Health
The LEA offers the following comments on the above referenced project:
1. The EIR should address the proper handling. and recycling of construction waste generated during the
project development.
2 Multi-family dwelling unit waste bin enclosures should provide adequate space for storage of recyclable
materials.
3. If any significant illegal land filling activity is discovered as a result of this project, the LEA shall be
notified prior to burial or removal.
If you should have an3' further questioni regarding the above Document, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(909} 275-8980.
JS:dr
State of California i Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
Memorandum
To
From
Subject:
State Clearinghouse
Office of Planning & Research
1400 10th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attention Mari Lewis
DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
District 8
D~ : April 1, 1994
FileNo.: 08-RiV-79-R3.9
SCH# 93092023
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula Valley School
District Bus and Maintenance Facility
We have reviewed the above-referenced document and request
consideration of the following comments:
e
care should be taken when developing this project to
preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern
of the state highway. Particular consideration must be
given to cumulative increased storm runoff to insure
that a highway drainage problem is not created.
O
Access from the project to State Route 79 (Winchester
Road), Opposite Roripaugh Road, will require Caltrans
approval. All matters regarding access, grading, and
drainage should be sent to:
Mr. Gerry Lunt
Development Review
California Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 231
San. Bernardino, CA 92402
If you have any questions, please contact La Keda Johnson at
(909) 383-5929 or FAX (909) 383-7934.
Transportation Planni~
Riverside County
Coordination Branch
LKJ:cl
REpLy TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
February 28, 1994
RECEIVED'
MAR 0 199
office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
RECEIVED
, ' u ?
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Attn: Saied Naaseh
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Gentlemen:
It has come to our attention that you plan to construct a
transportation and maintenance facility adjacent to Santa
Gertrudis Creek, west of Winchester Road and north of Margarita
Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. This
activity may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. A
corps of Engineers permit is required for:
a. Structures or work in or affecting "navigable waters of
the United States," including adjacent wetlands, pursuant to
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Examples
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1) constructing a pier, revetment, bulkhead, jetty, aid to
navigation, artificial reef or island, and any structures to
be placed under or over a navigable water;
2) dredging, dredqe disposal, filling and excavation.
b. The discharge of dredged or fill material into, including
any redeposit of dredged material within, "waters of the United
States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1972. Examples include, but are not limited
to, the following:
1) creating fills for residential or commercial development,
placing bank protection, temporary or permanent stockpiling
of excavated material, building road crossings, backfilling
for utility line crossings and constructingoutfall
structures, dams, levees, groins, weirs, or other structures;
2) mechanized landclearing, grading which involves filling
low areas or land leveling, ditching, channelizing and other
excavation activities that would have the effect of
destroying or degrading waters of the United States;
3) allowing runoff or overflow from a contained land or
water disposal area to re-enter a water of the United States;
4) placing pilings when such placement has or would have the
effect of a discharge of fill material.
c. The transportation of dredged or fill material by vessel
or other vehicle for the purpose of dumping the material into
ocean waters pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972;
d. Any combination of the above.
Enclosed you will find an information packet that describes
our regulatory program. If you have any questions, please
contact Eric Stein of my staff at (213) 894-0352. Refer to this
letter in your reply.
sincerely,
Bruce A. Henderson
Acting Chief, South Coast Section
Enclosures
RECEIVED
APR 0 8 l,g9~
~ 0153'f..,cT
South Coast
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000
March 8, 1994
Saled Naaseh
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
RE: Temecula Valley School District and Maintenance Facility
SCAQMD# RVC940225-01
RECEIVED
10 1994
Due to staffing cutbacks the SCAQMD is unable to comment on your project at this time.
SCAQMD staff recommends that you follow the procedures and methodologies set out in
the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993). Utilizing the information in the
Handbook will assist you in adequately addressing the potential air quality impacts of your
project. The Handbook will be updated periodically, in an effort to assist your staff in
evaluating air quality impacts that may result from land use projects.
The District staff will, however, make every effort to evaluate rojects of a regional nature.
We are available to answer any questions you may have regar~iin the use of the CEQA
Handbook. Please feel free to contact the Local Government - ~dQA section at (909)
396-3109 for assistance.
CAD:Ii
Program Su ervisor
Planning & P~echnology Advancement
April 9, 1994
REC EIV LD
Dear city planners, ~ ~ ~
I live in the Winchester Properties just east of the proposed
site, and I'm writing to you in regards to case #PA93-0157 and
PA94-0002.
I feel that a school district transportation facility,
could be a disaster toour area.
It was my understsnding that a planners' obligation to the
community was to project balance and harmony throughout the
city. Ifeel this area is being neglected because we represent
a minority of tax paying citizens which reside with-in
the boundries of Temecula.
Part of the taxes I pay each year are to develop parks
and recreational areas which in hopes will create a pleasent
environment. As it is we have to travel miles to enjoy the
areas we helped finance.
Ifeel the proposed transportation site will further damage,
and create an unfair imbalance in comparison, of the surrounding
residences. I also feel the site should be placed in an area
where there is an abundance of greenery and existing parks
or on the eastern portion of Temecula where a negative
environmental impact is not as severe.
I respectfully urge the planning commision to find an
alternative site due to poor" climate and air quality" and
an undisireable " land use ".
concerned citizen of Temecula,
Jeffrey Glen Sechler
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
R:\STAFFRPT\157PA93,PC 4/28/94 edl 37
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAINTENANCE,
OPERATIONS AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITY
PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0002
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 94022501
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
Lead Agency:
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
Contact Planner: Saied Naaseh
(714) 694-6400
Prepared by:
DOUGLAS WOOD & ASSOCIATES
567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 106
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 644-7977
AGENCY COMMENTS/STAFF RESPONSES
The following agencies commented on the Draft EIR. Each comment received is contained
herein and is followed by a summary of the respective concern and the staff response. The
following Responses to Comments in combination with the Draft EIR, Staff Report and
any other attachments for this project constitute the Final EIR for the Temecula Valley
Unified School District, Maintenance, Operations and Transportation Facility.
Page
Executive Summary ................................................. 1
A. City of Temecula Planning Depaitaient (April 11, 1994) ................. 3
B. South Coast Air Quality Management
District (March 8, 1994) ........................................ 4
C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Febmary 28, 1994) .................... 5
D. County of Riverside, Depa,~u~ent of Environmental
Health (March 9, 1994) ......................................... 6
E. Riverside County, Flood Control and Water
Conservation District (April 5, 1994) ............................... 8
F. State of California, Department of
Transportation (April 1, 1994) ................................... 10
G. Doreen Linnen (April 5, 1994) .................................. 11
~CUTIVE SUMMARY
The Temecula Valley Unified School District, .Maintenance, Operations and
Transportation Facility, Draft Environmental Impact Report, was circulated for public
review by the City of Temecula between February 22, 1994 and April 8, 1994. This
circulation was in conformance with Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA
Guidelines which state that, "The lead agency (City of Temecula) shall consuit with
and request comments on the Draft EIR from: 1) Responsible agencies; 2) Trustee
agencies with resources affected by the project; and 3) Other State, Federal and local
agencies which exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project.
The lead agency may consult directly with any person who has special expertise with
respect to any environmental impact involved."
This 45-day public review period (per Section 15087(c) of the State CEQA
Guidelines) resulted in the receipt of comments from a variety of governmental
agencies and other responsible parties as listed below. As indicated in Section 15088
of the State CEQA Guidelines:
15088. Evaluation of and Response to Comments
(a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on
environmentai issues received from persons who reviewed
the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The
lead agency shall respond to comments received during the
noticed comment period and any extensions and may
respond to late cerements.
(b) The written response shall describe the disposition
of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to
the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or
objections). In particular, the major environmental issues
raised when the lead agency's position is at variance with
recommendations and objections raised in the comments
must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specffic
comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must
be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory
statements unsupported by factual information wffi not
suffice.
(c) The response to comments may take the form of a
revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in
the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes
important changes in the information contained in the text
of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either:
(1)
or
Revise the text in the body of the EIR,
(2) Include mar~nal notes showing that
the information is revised in the response to
comments.
Provided below is a listing of each agency or responsible party who responded
to the Draf~ Environmental Impact Report accompanied by a listing of the respective
concerns raised and followed by an indication of the nature of the response to that
concern. Specific details concerning the comments made and responses provided can
be found in the following Response to Public Comments package. A copy of the actual
correspondence received is aise included.
Asrencv/Res~onsible Party
Concern
Nature of Res~orme
City ofTemecula Planni.g
Department
Request for additional
mitigation concerning
Evacuation Plan for flooding.
Additional mitigation measure
added to Section IV.F.,
Hydrology.
South Coast Air Quality
Marmgement District
Recommendation that CEQA
Handbook procedures be
followed.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook
factore used in Section IV.D.
Climate and Air Quality.
C. U.S. Army Corps of A permit from the Corps of Reference msde to mitigation 1
Engineere Engineere may be required. in Section IV.J. Wildlife/
Vegetation.
Dv
County of Riverside,
Department of
Environmental Health
Additional information
concerning use of rec]slm~d
water and solid waste impacts
requested.
Additional recl-;,~ed water and
solid waste information
provided.
E. Riverside County, Flood Project will not impact Master Reference to applicable
Control and Water Plan facilities. NPDES, mitigations provided.
Conservation District FEMA, DFG, and U.S. ACOE
permits required.
State of California Prejsot should not impact
D e p a r t m e n t o f drainage on a State Highway.
Transportation Approval of intersection design
required.
Opposed prejec~ due to air
quality, noise and traffm
impacts. The project should be
relocated on the opposite side
of Interstate
G. Dorcen Linnen
Project will not drain toward
State Route 79 and will have
intersection plans checked by
Caltrans.
No long-term significant
project impacts related to air
quality, noise and circulation.
Alternate sites discussion in
Draft EIR quoted.
2
A. CITY OF TEMECULA, PLANNING DEPARTMENT (April 11, 1994)
Pursuant to the request of the City of Temecula, Planning Department, the
following mitigation measure is hereby added to Section IV.F. Hydrology, of the text
(page IV-65) of the Draft EIR with a similar addition made to the EIR
Summary/Mitigation Monitoring Program:
"3. The proposed project shall adhere to the recommendations of the "Report
on Flood Warning and Evacuation for the Proposed Chaparral High School Site
in the Event of Breach of West Dam of Domenigoini Reservoir".
As noted on psge IV-64 of the Draft EIR, th/s study is included in its entirely
within Appendix C of the Draft EIR and outlines a plan of communication, warning
and evacuation for the proposed Chaparral High School site which is immediately
adjacent to the project site. This Report, prepared in September of 1992, provides an
Evacuation Plan which addresses the following elements: warning time, staffing
requirements, commnnlcations systems, alerting procedures, evacuation
considerations and arecommended evacuation plan. The recommendations contained
in this Report would appear to be applicable to the proposed Maintenance, Operations
and Transportation Facility in the event of breaching of either Domenigoini or
Skinner Reservoir Dnms.
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (March 8,
1994)
Comment 1: The South Coast Air Quality Management District recommends
that procedures and methodologies set forth in the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook
(April, 1993) is utilized within the analysis of sir quality impacts within the
Draft EIR.
Resnonse: Emission factors used to analyze air quality impacts in the Draft
EIR were based upon factors taken from the 1993 SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook.
4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (February 28, 1994)
Comment: A permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wffi be required
for the proposed project for: a) structures or work in or affecting "navigable
waters of the United States" including adjacent wetlands pursuant to Sections
10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; b) the discharge of dredged or fffi material
including any redepesit of dredged material within "waters of the United
States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
of 1972; c) the transportation of dredged or ~l material for the purpose of
dumping the material into ocean waters pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972; or (d) any combination of the
above.
Response: As noted in Mitigation Measure 1 on page IV-75 of the Draft EIR:
"1. In concert with construction activities adjacent to Santa Gertrudis Creek,
the California Department of Fish and Game wffi be notified and consulted
pursuant to the California Fish and Game Cede Sections 1601-1603 and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with their Section 404 permit
process."
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
m~.~LTH (March 9, 1994)
Comment 1: Use of reclaimed water for the proposed project should be more
fully explored. Should a dual plumbing system be used to irrigate the
landscape and shrubbery, enough fresh water would be saved and made
available to serve about 50 homes or families. This project is the ideaS type of
project for duaS uses of water. The duaS system would be designed by a reliable
civil engineer with review/approvaS by the Riverside County HeaSth
Department.
Response: As stated on pages IV-92 and IV-93 of the Draft EIR:
"At the present time, there are no reclaimed water facilities to serve the
proposed project. Eastern MunicipaS Water District (EMWD) is currently in the
process of planning a backbone reclaimed water system throughout the District
which may include a major llne ill Winchester Read. EMWD Ordinance No. 68,
adopted in October of 1989, describes the District's policy regarding reclaimed
water use. EMWD may require the project to construct reclaimed water lines
on-site so that when the regionaS system is complete, the project can ultimately
utilize reclaimed water for irrigation."
"Areas most likely to utilize reclaimed water are landscaped areas aSong the
perimeter of the proposed project as well as landscaped areas within parking
lots and adjacent to buildings. The proposed EMWD reclaimed water system
would ultimately provide service to the project site. The proposed project will
comply with EMWD's requirements for installation of on-site reclaimed water
lines. The project will likely connect to the backbone reclaimed water line to
be constructed in the future aSong Winchester road. A distribution line may be
extended as part of the extension of Reripaugh Read."
Mitigation Measure 1 on page IV-93 of the Draft EIR has been revised to state
(addition underlined}:
"1. All water, sewer and reclaimed water facilities will be designed per the
Eastern MunicipaS Water Distr (EMWD) and the Rancho CaliFornia Water
District's (RCWD) requirements. Reclaimed water facilities will aSso be
reviewed by the County of Riverside. Denartment of EnvironmentaS HeaSth.
The infrastructural system will be installed to the requirements of EMWD and
RCWD. The property owner wffi also grant any requested easements to
RCWD?
Comment 2: The Final EIR should address the proper handling, and recycling
of construction waste generated during the project development.
Response: The censtrnction phase of the proposed project will produce solid
waste. Construction waste is calculated at approximately 16 pounds per square foot
of bu~ding space and generally consist of lumber, roofing materiaS, concrete debris,
etc. Assuming 24,399 square feet of total interior space associated with the proposed
project, the solid waste associated with the overall construction phase of the proposed
project is estimated at 390,384 pounds of 195.2 tens. This is considered a short-term,
non-significant impact.
On page IV-100 of the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure i states that the project
applicant is required to "work with the County Waste Mansgement Department and
the City of Temecula in efforts to achieve the goals of the Integrated Waste
Management Act." This requirement also applies .to the generation of construction
waste.
Comment 3: Multi-family dwelling unit waste bin enclosures should provide
adequate space for storage for recyclable materials.
Response: No multi-family residential land uses are proposed. Solid waste bin
enclosure areas within the proposed project, the precise design of which will be
reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula, Community Services Department,
w~l include adequate space for storage of recyclable materials.
Comment 4: If any significant illegal land filling activity is discovered as a
result of this project, the DEH shall be notified prior to burial or removal.
Response: As noted in Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 on page IV-82 of the
Draft EIR:
"1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City of Temecula and any
appropriate County or state agencies shall review proposed project plans to
determine the potential for existence and use of toxic materials and potential
adverse effects from exposure to toxic substances. Particular impacts which
may occur include degradation to air and water quality, health problems,
transportation, storage or disposal problems. Required measures may include
requirements for setbacks, siting of structures and monitoring.*'
"2. The proposed facility, once operating, will adhere to standards and
requirements of OSHA, Cal OSHA, EPA, the County of Riverside, Department
of Environmental Health and the City of Temecula."
7
E. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT (April 5, 1994)
Comment 1: This project would not be impacted by Drainage Master Plan
facilities or other facilities of regional interest.
ReSponse: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Final Environmental
Impact Report.
Comment 2: This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control
Boar& Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval, should not
be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a
permit or is shown to be exempt.
Response: As noted in Mitigation Measures 1 and 2 on page IV-67 of the Draft
EIR:
"1. Pursuant to requirements of the California State Regional Water
Resources Control Board, a state-wide general National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit will apply to all project-
related construction activities. Construction activity includes: clearing,
grading, or excavation that results in the disturbance of at least five acres of
total land area, or activity which is part of a larger common plan of
development of five acres or greater. Therefore, as a mitigation for this project,
the appropriate NPDES construction permit shall be obtained prior to
commencing grading activities. All development within the project boundaries
shall be subject to future requirements adopted by the City to implement to
NPDES program."
"2. The proposed project wffi comply with National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements through the provision of three-
stage treatment clarifiers for surface runoff from the project site. Eastern
Municipal Water District wffi monitor the quality of runoff from these
Surfaces."
Comment 3: If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) mapped floodplain, then the City should require the applicant to
provide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet
FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a
Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or
other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior
to occupancy.
Response: As noted in Mitigation Measure 1 on page V-64 of the Draft EIR:
"All drainage facilities for this project shall conform to the standards and
requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District and the City of Temecula in order to mitigate potential surface
8
This measure ~ould apply to the FEMA requirements noted above, as applicable to
the proposed project.
Comment 4: If a natural watercourse or mapped floodplain is impacted by this
project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601-1603
Agreement from the California Department of Fish and GAme and a Clean
Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or
written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt
from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 404 Water Quality
Certffication may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality
Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permits.
Response: See response to comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
as contained in this Responses to Comments package.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(April 1, 1994)
Comment 1: Care should be taken when developing this project to preserve
and perpetuate the existing drAinsge pattern of the State Highway. Particular
consideration must be given to cumulative increased storm runoff to insure
that a highway drainage problem is not created.
Response: The size of the project site (6.642 acres) and the direction of future
drainage flows from the finished project (toward Santa Gertrudis Creek and away
from State Route 79) insures that the proposed project wffi not result in increased
storm runoff impacts to the nearest State Highway, Winchester Road (State Route
79).
Comment 2: Access from the project to State Route 79 (Winchester Road),
opposite Roripaugh Road, will require Caltr~na approval.
Response: This comment is hereby incorporated into the Final Environmental
Impact Report.
10
G. DOREEN LrNNEN (April 6, 1994)
Comment 1: I object to the placement of a bus facility near our home for the-
following reasons: a) air pollution b) noise, and c) traffic congestion. These
impacts wffi result in a loss of property value of our home.
Response: The impacts of the proposed project related to air qual/ty, noise and
traffic were analyzed in detail in Sections IV.D., Air Quality, 1V.C., Noise and IV.E.
Circulation. The only significant impact resulting from the analysis of these three
issues is the "short-term" (construction -related) emissions of Nitrogen Oxides. This
impact is short-term in that it only occurs dur/ng and as a result of project
construction.
Comment 2: This type of project should be placed on the opposite side of the
freeway away from housing.
Response: Section V.C., Alternatives to the Proposed Project, within the Draft
EIR, analyzes alternate project sites. One alternate site which was considered was
located on the west side of Interstate 15 (Rancho California Water District Building
on Diaz Read). This alternative was rejected due to the site's location on the west
side of Interstate 15 which lengthens bus routes and would result in possible delays
in bus service due to traffic congestion at the freeway overpasses.
11
South Coast
I
AIR QUAL TY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
21865 E. Gopley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000
B
March 8, 1994
Saled Naaseh
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
RE: Temecula Valley School District and Maintenance Facility
SCAQMD# RVC940225-01
RECEIVED
HAF~ 10 lSS~
Due to staffing cutbacks the SCAQMD is unable to comment on your project at this time.
SCAQMD staff recommends that you follow the procedures and methodologies set out in
the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993). Utilizing the information in the
Handbook will assist you in adequately addressing the potential air quality impacts of your
project. The Handbook will be updated periodically, in an effort to assist your staff in
evaluating air quality impacts that may result from land use projects.
The District staff will, however, make every effort to evaluate projects of a regional nature.
We are available to answer any questions you may have regarding the use of the CEQA
Handbook. Please feel free to contact the Local Government - CEQA section at (909)
396-3109 for assistance.
Program Su endsor
Planning & ~echnology Advancement
CAD:Ii
~EPt,y TO
ATTENTION OF
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORP,~ OF ENGINEERS
leo 8OX 2711
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA ~QS3-2325
February 28, 1994
C
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
RZCEIV.-'D
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Attn: Saied Naaseh
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Gentlemen:
It has come to our attention that you plan to construct a
transportation and maintenance facility adjacent to Santa
Gertrudis Creek, west of Winchester Road and north of Margarita
Road in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. This
activity may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit. A
Corps of Engineers permit is required for:
a. Structures or work in or affecting "navigable waters of
the United States," including adjacent wetlands, pursuant to
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Examples
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1) constructing a pier, revetment, bulkhead, jetty, aid to
navigation, artificial reef or island, and any structures to
be placed under or over a navigable water;
2) dredging, dredge disposal; filling and excavation.
b. The discharge of dredged or fill material into, including
any redeposit of dredged material within, "waters of the United
States" and adjacent wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act of 1972. Examples include, but are not limited
to, the following:
1) creating fills for residential or commercial development,
placing bank protection, temporary or permanent stockpiling
of excavated material, building road crossings, backfilling
for utility line crossings and constructing outfall
structures, dams, levees, groins, weirs, or other structures;
2) mechanized landclearing, grading which involves filling
low areas or land leveling, ditching, channelizingand other
excavation activities that would have the effect of
destroying or degrading waters of the United States;
3) allowing runoff or overflow from a contained land or
water disposal area to re-enter a water of the United States;
4) placing pilings when such placement has or would have the
effect of a discharge of fill material.
c. The transportation of dredged or fill material by vessel
or other vehicle for the purpose of dumping the material into
ocean waters pursuant to Section 103 of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972;
d. Any combination of the above.
Enclosed you will find an information packet that describes
our regulatory program. If you have any questions, please
contact Eric Stein of my staff at (213) 894-0352. Refer to this
letter in your reply.
Sincerely,
Bruce A. Henderson
Acting Chief, South Coast Section
Enclosures
TO:
FROM:
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
RECEIVED D
PIAR 1 | 199 .
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT. ~C)
Avr : Sai dN eh
JOHN SILVA, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer, Deparanent of Environmental Health
~/TCEMECULA VALLEY UNIFORM SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION,
ADMINISTRATIVE AND MAIN't~NANCE FACILITY - DRAFT EIR
WATER/SEWER: (John C. Silva, P.E.. Senior Public Health Engineer), Denartment of Environmental
Health
The 6.642 acre site will be receiving its 23,911 gallons per day of domestic water from Rancho California Water
District. A total of 19,926 gallons per day of sewage is estimated from the project which will be treated at the
Eastern Mumcipal Water District plant in Temeeula.
Use of RECLAIMED WATER is mentioned but not fully explored for project implementation. Should a dual
plumbing system be used to irrigate the landscape and shrubbery, enough fresh water would be saved and made
available to serve about 50 homes or families. In the reclaimed business, a project such as this is the ideal ,type of
project for dual uses of water. The dual system would be designed by a Registered Civil Engineer with
review/approval by the Riverside County Health Department.
SOLID WASTE: Chuck Strev, P.E, Civil En2ineer, Denaament of Environmental Health
The LEA offers the following comments on the above referenced project:
1. TheE~Rsh~u~daddressthepr~perhand~ing~andrecyc~ing~fc~nstrn~ti~nx~stegeneratedduringthe
project development.
2. Mu~ti~fami~ydwe~~ingunitwastebinenc~~suressh~u~dpr~videadequatespa~ef~rst~rage~frecyc~ab~e
materials.
3. If any significant illegal land filling activity. is discovered as a result of this project, the LEA shall be
notified prior to burial or removal.
If you should have any further questions regarding the above Document, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(909) 275-8980.
JS:dz
1
2
3
4
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
7-cLEPHcem (7s41 ;?6,tax~
FAXNO.(TI,4)78449ei
RECEIVED
APR O 5 199z
'IL .........
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land Use ~ In hlcorlxxated dues. The DistriCt al~o does not
plan check city land u.se cases, or provide State Division of Red Estale letters or other flood hazard reports for ~ m
commentdrecommendatlol',s for su¢h oases ~ n~f~nally IirnP. ed to )terns of spedtic interest to Lhe Dl~',r~t lncluctng I:}{s~tci Mauter Drainage Plan
fadltUes. other regionaJ flood control and drainage facilities which cotdd be ccx~dered a logical ¢ompanenl or extendon Of a master plan system,
and Di~ttid Area Drainage Plan fees (dovelOprnent mltlg;Ation fees). In addition, Informalion of a general nature ~ provided,
The DisUld has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked cofrenents do not In My way eon~tute er imply District
approval or endorsement oi~ the proposed proled with respect to flood haze'd, public healffi and safety or any other such issue:
~Thls project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilitiea~ nor Ne other facilities of regional interest proposed.
I"] This project involves Disthct Mailer Ran facilities. The District wtil m;:Oept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facililjes
must be constructed tO District standards, ard Distticl plan Check and inspecttan Will be requ~ed for Dietrid a4;x}epTanCe. Plan ched~
inspection and adrninistra. tive fees wlfi be required_
[~]This project propose:~ r.~,annels, storm drains 36 inChes or Im'ger In dlameler. or other facilities that could be co~tdered regional In nature
and/er e logical exlelnsion of Ihe adopted Master Drainage Ran. The DistriQ-t would Carraider
ownership of such fadlilies on written request ot the CIty. Fadlltles must be clonstructed Io District slanderale. and District plan oheCk end
Jnspedi0n will be required for District acceptance. Plan Check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
F']Th~s proled is located w~thin the liralie of the Districts Area Drajn~Je Plan |or whiCh drainage
fees have been adopted; applicable lees should be paid to the Rood Cotltrol District or City prior to linai approval el the project, or in the c,e~e
o~ a parcel map or subdivision prior to recordallen 0t the final map. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of reo~rdation.
or it delerred, at the time of issuance ot the actual permit.
GEN~.~IION
This proje~ may require a National Pdlutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from lhe State Waer Resources Control BoNd.
Clearance lot grading. rec~rdation. or other final approval. should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a
permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this project involves e Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City Should require The applicant to
preY{de aZl studies, CaJculmion8. plans and other tnfa,n"nation required to meet FEMA requirements. and .~nould furlher require that the applir. ant
obtaJn s Ccxxjitionai Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordaUon or other fina~ approva~ Of ~e project. and a brier of Map
Revision (LOMR) Ixlor to oecupancy.
If a natural wa;ercourso of mapped fl',J~d ~aitl is lrnpacled by ~his project the CIty should require the applicant to obtain a Sealion 1601/1603
Agreement from the California Deparlrnent of Fish and Game and a Clean Water ACt SeClion 404 perrml frg(n tt~ U.S. AzTn¥ Corps of
Engineers, or writlan correspondenc,~ Item Ihese alandes Indicating the proled Is exempt from these requirernenls. A Clean Waler Act .Section
40~ Water Ouailty Certification may be required from the Ic,~ld Califorola Regional Water Quality Control BoNd prior to issuance of the Corp~
404 permit.
_~1:),(_ DUSTY WILLlAMe
· ,Senior Civil Engineer , ::,'
Date: 4" I- /""
APR 18 '94
norandu'm
F
'State ClearinghoUse
Office of Planning & Research
1400 lOth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Attention Mari Lewis
DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORrATION
DiStrict 8
Dote
File
April i, 1994
08-R~V-Tg-R3.9
SCH# 93092023
Draft Environmental Impout Report for the Temeoula Valley School
District Bus and MaintenanCe Facility
we have reviewed the above-referenced document and request
consideration of the following comments:
care should be taken when developing this project to
preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern
or the state highway. Particular consideration must be
given to cumulative increased storm runoff to insure
that a highway drainage,problem is not ¢reata~.
Access from the project to State Route 79 (Winches~:er
Road), opposite Roripaugh Road, will require Calftans
approve]. All matters regarding access, grading, and
drainage ~hould be sent to~
Mr. Gerry Lunt
Development Review
California Department of TranspOrtation
P.O. BoX 231
8an Bernar~ino, CA 92402
(9o9)
I~ you have any questions, please contact La Keda Johnson at
383-5929 or FAX (909) 383-7934.
Riverside Count~
Coordination Branch
LKJ:ol
1
2
RPR 18 ~- "- ....
~T[ OF CALIFORNia
3VERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
TENTH STREET
CRAMENTO, CA 95814
PETE WILSON.
- :.
RECEIVED
APR 18 'leH
CITY OF TF. MF. CULA
CITY OF TX~CULA PL~NNIN6
T[MZCUL~, CA 92590
Subjects TIIiICULA VAr~T~Y UNIFIED SCHOOb DISTRICT K~INTENANOZ SCH ~l 93092023
Dear SAISD NKASEH:
The State ClearinVhouse has submitted the a~ve nard draft Znvironn~ntal Impact
Report (~IR) to selected state agencies ~or review. The review period is ncM ololed
and the sonysenSe ~rom the reel>ending agency(ice) is(ate) enclosed. On the enclosed-
Notice Of Completion ~orm you will note that the Clearinghouse hem checked the
ager,c~eS that have conu~ented. Please review the Notice o{ completion to ensure that
your oon~ent package is cc~nple~e, l~ the comment package Is not ~n order~ please
notify the'state Clearinghouse l~mldiatel~, Reeembet tO refer tO the prc~ect,s
eight-d~git State Cleet~nghouse number so that we may respon~ promptly.
Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources code required
tha~t
"s responsible Agency or o%her public ngAncy shall only mak- =uh,tantive
~omments regm-n' ':.,~e 6ctivt~er lxsvr,l,v~d lzl a project w)z~¢h ~r~ wj. thL~
an area of expertise o~ the agency or whioh a~e re~uited t~ be carried out
or apetoyed by the agency.w
C~enting ageholes are also required by this section to support their comments with
sgeciflc doour~entatLon.
These ConemeritS are for~4arded for your use in preparing ynut flail SIR, Should you
need more in~ot~ation or clarification, we reoon~lnd that ~ou sentact the calmeating
Egenc~(ies),
This lette~ acknowledges that you have ccfnplied with the statw Olsaringhouse review
requirements ~or draft environmental documen~l~ pursuant tO the Call~ornia '
Environmental ~ality &st. Please contact ~!ar~ L~nos at (916) 445-o613 Lf ~ou have
any ~uestions regarding the envLronmen~al review process.
RECEIVED
APR 0 8 |99z~