Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout110794 PC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 7, 1994, 6:00 PM Rancho California Water District Board Room 42135 Winchester Road Temeeula, CA 92390 CAIJ~ TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Ford Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster and Ford A total of 15 minuW. s is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to thr~ (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are cailed to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Approval of July 18, 1994 Minutes Approval of August 1, 1994 Minutes Approval of September 19, 1994 Minutes 3. Approval of July 28, 1994 Johnson Ranch Planning Commission Workshop Minutes 4. Director's Hearing Update NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5. Planning Application No. PA94-0112 - DIRECT Staff to approve Planning Application No.94-0112 for a Forty-Five (45) foot high, approximately eighty-six (86) square foot freestanding freeway oriented sign for Chevron PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 6. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: 7. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: 8. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: 9. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA94-0071 Ted Zonos Southwesterly comer of Margarita Road and Pauba Road Second Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 226 to construct three commercial buildings totaling 27,000 square feet (continued from the September 15, 1994 Planning Director's Hearing) Re-Certify Previously Adopted Negative Declaration Craig Ruiz Approve School Mitigation Program Resolution Temecula Valley Unified School District Citywide To establish a program to mitigate the impacts to local school facilities from new development. Exempt David Hogan Recommend Approval Planning Application No. 944)081 (Plot Plan) The Allen Group for Federal Express Northeast corner of Jefferson and Sanborn Avenues Construction of a 25,556 square foot distribution facility Mitigated Negative Declaration Matthew Fagan Approval Vendor's Ordinance City of Temecula City Wide Vendor's Ordinance Negative Declaration Debbie Ubnoske Recommend Approval Next meeting: December 5, 1994, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 18, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula PLanning Commission was called to order on Monday, July 18, 1994, 6:05 P.M., at Rancho California Water District, Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. PRESENT: 5 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford COMMISSIONERS: NONE Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Public Works Director Tim Serlet, Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz and the Recording Secretary. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Aooroval of Aoenda It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to approve the agenda as... The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoegland, Salyer, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Minutes 2.1 Minutes of May 23, 1994 It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to approve the minutes of April 25, 1994. Changes: Page 2, Item 2.2 needs to show the vote Page 7, Paragraph 3, should read Regional/Village Center R:~PLANCO~\7-18-94 9/22/94 ,~t 1 The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 2.2 Minutes of June 6, 1994 It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to approve the minutes of June 6, 1994. Changes: Page 4, Item 2.2 The motion carried as follows should read The motion failed to carry as follows: The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Director's Hearina Uodate Planning Director Thornhill presented the report which was received and filed with no vote. ADDroyal Of an ADDroximatelv Twentv Eight (28) Foot Hiah Freestanding Freewav Oriented Sign for Wendv's Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. Planner Fagan stated that the Wendy's project was approved by the Planning Director on July 16, 1994. The project was for a 28 foot 4 inch Wendy's sign. There was no Commission discussion of the item. It was moved by Commissioner Blair, seconded by Chairman Ford to direct staff to approve Planning Application No. 94-0060 for a 28'4" high freestanding freeway oriented sign for Wendy's. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Adoot a Resolution Determinina that Rancho California Water District'S 94-95 CaDital Construction Projects are Consistent with the Adopted City General Plan Associate Planner David Hogan presented the staff report. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to adopt Resolution No. 94- ... The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Chanoe of Zone No. 5691 Change of zone request of five (5) parcels from R-A-2 ~2 (Residential Agricultural 2~ acre minimum lot size) to C-O (Commercial Office). Located on the north side of Highway 79 South, approximately 660 feet west of the intersection of Highway 79 South and Margarita Road. Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:15 P.M. Larry Markham, as a representative for Los Ranchito Estates, expressed support forthe project and came before the Commission to answer any questions which they might have. Commissioner Fahey inquired as to whether the consistency changes matched the General Plan. Planning Director Gary Thornhill addressed Commissioner Fahey's concern and stated that the changes were consistent with the General Plan. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to close the public hearing at 6:20 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 5691 and Adopt Resolution No. 94- recommending approval of Change of Zone No. 5691, based on staff's recommendations. The motion was carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Salyer, Ford NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Vesting Tentative Tract Mao No, 25063/Change of Zone No. 5598 Proposal to subdivide a 20 acre parcel into 68 residential units and change the zone classification from R-R2~/= (Rural Residential 2~ acre minimum lot size) to R-1 (One Family Dwelling). Located on the south side of Nicholas Road, approximately 2000 feet east of Calle Medusa. Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report which was continued from the June 6, 1994 meeting. Planner Ruiz recommended this item be continued to the September 19, 1994 meeting to allow staff to properly notice the project. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Suite N, Temecula, expressed his support of the project. Commissioner Hoagland reiterated that the meeting would be held on September 19, 1994 and not be continued to a later meeting date. NO VOTE WAS TAKEN. Plannina Aoolication No. 94-0043. Minor Conditional Use Permit Proposal to locate a billlard parlor and video arcade in an existing building in a commercial shopping center. Located at 41915 Motor Car Parkway. Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Planner Ruiz, noting that the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, requested that the Commission approve the project subject to Ordinance No. 94-25. Chairman Ford suggested that the Police Department requirements, which were identical to their requirements for other projects in the area, as well as the Fire Departments requirements need, to be more definitive. Commissioner Hoagland stated that he would be reluctant to apply different Police and Fire Department conditions to this project. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:32 P.M. Ken Wade, representative, 29605 Solana Way, No. 6, stated that he agrees with all the conditions presented in the staff report, but opposed Item 18 of Page 11 relative to Public Facilities Impact Fees. Dirk Wegner, 31126 Del Rey Road, expressed opposition to the project and stated that the proposed location of the business was in a family oriented area and too close to the proposed Chaparral High School. He also stated that the business would be a breeding ground for gangs and violence. Mr. Wegner compared the proposed project to the Yellow Brick Road arcade located in the Target Center. He asked the Commission to postpone voting on the project for two weeks so that a petition could be started. Mr. Wegner also proposed that if alcohol was going to be sold on the premises, the business should not go in at that location. Ken Wade presented the Commission with a letter in support of the Pool Hall. Mr. Wade also stated that the existing High Society Billiards is located closer to the high school than the proposed billlard hall. Mr. Wade also stated that Klassic Shotz Billlard could not be compared to the Yellow Brick Road and requested that the Commission not grant a two week extension based on Mr. Wegner's request. Mr. Ford closed the public hearing at 6:48 P.M. Commissioner Salyer questioned how staff determined the project does not pose a threat to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. Planner Ruiz said the proposed project is located in an existing commercial center and contains similar commercial uses and there have been no complaints from the surrounding businesses. The Police Department has no concerns other than those stated in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Ruiz stated that the Conditional Use Permit was revokable if the Conditions of Approval were not met. Chairpersons Fahey, Salyer, and Blair questioned the noticing process and whether Planning Department staff complied with the intent of the noticing requirements. Director Thornhill stated the Planning Department has gone beyond the noticing requirements. Planner Ruiz stated that the noticing procedure met the legal requirements and that the noticing was for 21 days rather than the required 10 days and that surrounding business owners were also noticed. Commissioners Blair and Fahey recommended more noticing be sent to surrounding residents. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland to approve staff's recommendation, but after further discussion Commissioner Hoagland withdrew his motion, but urged Commission to view like facilities before voting. Chairman Ford stated he had visited similar establishments and suggested the Commission do the same before voting on the proposed project. Commissioner Salyer expressed concern about surrounding commercial businesses not knowing the nature of the proposed project. He stated that he was not against billlard halls, but was concerned about the noticing. Chairman Ford stated that the notices should be delivered to the nearby apartment manager and the owner of the nearby apartment complex. Commissioner Fahey moved to close the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M. and continue the proposed project to the August 1, 1994 Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to notice the apartment residents, seconded by Commissioner Blair. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Chairman Ford declared a recess at 7:17 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 7:29 P.M. 9, Specific Plan No. 263 and Change of Zone No. 5589 Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot Commercial Core, 810,000 square feet of Office/Institutional and Mixed Use Residential with 298,000 square feet of retail with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zone from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan). Located south of Winchester Road between Ynez and Margarita Roads. Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske presented the staff report stating the proposed project had been continued from the June 6, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Fahey stated that Condition No. 58 of the Conditions of Approval should more clearly state that it applied specifically to residential development in the Specific Plan. Planner Ubnoske stated the primary issue for the Regional Center is the Village Center Concept which was carried over from the May 23, 1994 meeting. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. Dennis Chiniaeff, representative for Kemper Community Development Company, 27555 Ynez Road, inquired as to the conditions which allow some community development to occur which interest both the City and Kernper. Mr. Chiniaeff also said the conditions should be balanced in terms of property improvements and area improvements. He also questioned whether Condition No. 12 of the Conditions of Approval applied to the residential portions of the proposed project. Mr. Chiniaeff asked about Condition No. 18 and the Developer Fee for commercial, office and residential; his understanding is that these were Facilities fees. Director Thornhill stated that Condition No. 12 relating to School District fees does apply to the residential portion of the project. Assistant City Attorney, Greg Diaz added legal comments relating to the School Mitigation issue and the impact fee both of which have not been resolved by the City Council and is under State Law. Dennis Chiniaeff asked about the payment of $10,000.00 for Community Facility Fees and whether the fee could be prepaid. Assistant City Attorney Diaz stated that the $10,000.00 fee could not be prepaid. Condition No. 20 to be changed from "of any subsequent development application" to "for each subsequent development application." Mr. Chiniaeff, the applicant, inquired about Condition No. 28, Bullet No. 3 regarding the infrastructure being in place prior to issuance of occupancy permits and the dedication of the right-of-way for the construction of Winchester Road. Mr. Chiniaeff stated that the Right-of-Way was intended to be purchased under CFD 88-12. He requested that a provision be made stating that the acquisition cost be reimbursed for the required right-of-way. R:~P~s..NCO~\7-18-94 9/22/94 tjs 7 Condition No. 30 states "the developer is responsible to bond and construct traffic signals..." The word prior should be struck from the condition. Condition No. 43 should include "unless approved by the Director of Public Works for street purposes." Commissioner Hoagland asked about Condition No. 30 and the method of reimbursement when improving property other than own and that the improvements are also part of Campos Verdes. Tim Serlet, Director of Public Works stated that the Right-of-Way reimbursement money went to the City for expended funds. Planning Director Thornhill stated that Condition No. 60 should read "...open space in residential areas shall be maintained..." It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to close the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 94- recommending approval of Specific Plan No. 263 and Change of Zone No. 5589 based on Staff's recommendations subject to the Conditions of Approval including modifications to Condition No(s) 12, 20, 28, 30, 43, 58, and 60 as discussed, seconded by Commissioner Fahey. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None Commissioner Hoagland moved to re-order the remaining Agenda items so that Item 10 follow the Planning Director's Report and other Commission business. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director Thornhill stated that the Johnson Ranch Workshop needed to be rescheduled because of noticing requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION None OTHER BUSINESS None 10. SPeCifiC Plan No. 1, Chanae of Zone No. 5617 and Environmental linDact RePort NO. 348 Specific Plan proposing 308 single-family residential units, 12 acres of Commercial, approximately 13.7 acres of Office/Commercial/Church/Detention, 10.8 acres of Park and 10.7 acre Elementary School Site with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan). Commissioners Hoagland and Fahey excused themselves from the meeting at 7:55 P.M. due to a conflict of interest. Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske presented the staff report and stated that the project was originally heard at the June 6, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. Planner Ubnoske stated that the opening of Sanderling Way and/or Starling Street needed to be discussed by the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Diaz stated that due to only three (3) Commissioners voting on the proposed project, the vote must be unanimously approved in order for the motion to carry. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 7:58 P.M. Dennis Chiniaeff, the applicant, stated that Condition No, 13 should not be included in the Conditions of Approval due to direct access into the single family detached residential located in Planning Area No. 5 which was originally designated as multi-family housing. Mr. Chiniaeff also stated that Condition No. 16 for School District fees should not be included in the Conditions of Approval because a school site is being donated by the developer of the project. Attorney Diaz recommended that Condition No. 16 relative to school mitigation needs to be resolved prior to the proposed project being brought before City Council. Mr, Chiniaeff stated that he does not agree with Condition No. 16 and does not want to approve the condition, but would leave as stated until further discussion. The verbiage in Condition No. 22 should be consistent with previous Condition No. 9 and should read "Prior to the issuance of building permits for the various phases of development, the developer shall..." Mr. Chiniaeff requested that Condition No. 24 should read "...prior to approval cf c~,¥ for each subsequent development application." Mr. Chiniaeff requested that Condition No. 33 should read the 235th EDU rather than the 200th EDU. Mr. Chiniaeff requested that the last sentence in Condition No. 34 be concluded with "or as required by the Director of Public Works" . Chairman Ford and Commissioners Blair and Salyer favored the recommended access from Starling Street as a safer route than Winchester Road. Commissioner Blair moved to close the Public Hearing at 8:10 P.M. and Adopt Staff's recommendations with the changes to the Conditions of Approval, to delete Condition No. 13, change Condition No. 22 to be consistent with the former Condition No. 9, to modify Conditions 24, 33, and 34, seconded by Commissioner Salyer. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland ADJOURNMENT Chairman Ford declared the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on August 1, 1994 at 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Secretary Chairman Steve Ford MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, August 1, 1994, 6:08 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford presiding. PRESENT: 3 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Ford COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz and Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Aoenda It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer 2. Staff Direction on Public Use Permit No. 625 Revised - Rancho Ba~)tist Church Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske presented the staff report. She explained the applicant is currently in violation and a minor change must be filed to amend the condition of approval to give the applicant some additional time to construct the block wall. She said if the Commission does not approve the extension of time, the church would be cited for non-compliance and the applicant would be told to construct the block wall and follow through with the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Hoagland said he feels the applicant should construct the wall. Gary Thornhill said the City would follow the normal procedure for zoning violations if they do not satisfy their conditions of approval. PCMIN08/01194 I 09/23/94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1994 Commissioner Fahey said she is not in favor of granting an extension of time to the applicant. Chairman Ford said he would like to see the applicant construct the wall with a time schedule. He clarified the Commission's direction would be to enforce the public use permit. Review Caoital Improvement Proaram (CIP), for Consistency with the General Plan Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to approve staff recommendation and Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 94- 27 "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DETERMINING THAT THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S 1994-1995 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED CITY GENERAL PLAN" The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer Direct Staff to Deny PA94-0063 for A Fortv-0ne Foot Six Inch (41 '6"0) Hioh, One Hundred Twenty-Two (122) Souare Foot Freestandina Freeway Oriented Sion for Toyota of Temecula Valley Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to direct staff to deny Planning Application No. 94-0063 for a forty-one foot six inch (41 '6") high, one hundred twenty-two (122) square foot freestanding freeway oriented sign for Toyota of Temecula Valley Chairman Ford asked if the applicant's existing sign was removed and this sign placed, would staff view the request differently. Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan said yes. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Ford PCMIN08/01/94 2 09/23/94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer AUGUST 1, 1994 5, Director's Hearina Update Report included in the agenda package. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 6. Plannino ADDliCatiOn NO. 94-0042, Amendment No. 1 - Public Use Permit Proposed expansion to existing church including sanctuary, a worship/ fellowship hall, administrative space, preschool and day school facility, to be developed in three phases. Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. Commissioner Hoagland and Chairman Ford expressed concerns regarding adequate parking at build-out of the project. Rev. Lyle Peterson, 29834 Corte Granada, Temecula, representing Hope Lutheran Church, provided background on the Hope Lutheran Church and outlined the proposal. Tim Holt, Chief Architect, 275 N. El Cielo, Palm Springs, talked about the architectural aspects of the project. John Rogers, 27393 Ynez Road, #154, Temecula, project engineer, talked about the engineering aspects of the project. He said Conditions of Approval Nos. 12, 15, 18, 25 refer to a written report requiring mitigated measures outlined in the mitigation monitoring program have been satisfied however, there are conditions imposed by the negative declaration and suggested the Commission delete these four conditions. He also said Condition No. 57 requires the applicant to pay any capital fee imposed on the project including that imposed as mitigation under the E.I.R. Negative Declaration however, they have not been given any conditions. Vince DiDonato, Alhambra Group Landscape Architects, 28441 Rancho California Road, Suite G, landscape architect for the project, provided an overview of the landscape plan for the project. Mr. DiDonato questioned Condition 11 (a), and said there is a significant amount of large trees on the project and he feels it his responsibility for identifying those trees which should remain on the site. He also expressed a concern regarding Condition 16, which he feels is inappropriate for the location recommended. PCMIN08/O1194 3 09~23~94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1994 Director Thornhill suggested the language in the Condition read, "if deemed feasible". Tom Shanks, Master Plan Director for Hope Lutheran Church, 29201 Via Norte, Temecula, thanked staff for their help and asked for the Commission's approval of the project. He expressed support of the Conditions of Approval with amendments as requested by the proponents of the project. Jim Horn, 31467 Son0ma Lane, Temecula, member of the Hope Lutheran Church Planning Committee, spoke in favor of Hope Lutheran Church. Lynn Petroff, P.O. Box 890122, Temecula, member of the Hope Lutheran Church, spoke in favor of Hope Lutheran Church. Planner Fagan explained Conditions of Approval 12, 15, 18 and 25 relate to the Mitigation Monitoring Program and are state requirements. He explained that on projects of this nature, staff prepares the Mitigation Monitoring Program and uses the program during various stages of the development to ensure compliance with the Conditions of Approval. Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz addressed the applicant's request to delete Condition No. 57 and explained the Planning Commission cannot waive fees, however, the applicant can appeal the Condition to the City Council or pay the fee "under protest". Director Thornhill advised the applicant that this Condition has been appealed to the City Council in the past without fees being waived. Commissioner Hoagland recommended Condition 11 (a) and 16 be amended to replace the term "practical" with the term "feasible". Chairman Ford expressed concern that the landscape architect ensure the size of the trees along Rancho California Road are sufficient for the elevation. Commissioner Fahey asked if a Condition should be drafted to deal with her concern regarding the parking requirements for full build-out of the project. Planner Fagan suggested the following Condition be added "Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase III, a parking needs analysis shall be conducted and approved by the Planning Director". Tom Shanks agreed to the modifications to the Conditions of Approval. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagland, to close the public hearing and Direct Staff to Approve Planning Application No. 94- 0056 (Setback Adjustment) and Adoot the Negative Declaration for PA94-0042, PCMIN08/01194 4 09/23/94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1994 Amendment No. I and Adoot Resolution No. 94-24 approving PA94-0042 Amendment No. I based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval as modified and stated above. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer Chairman Ford declared a 5 minute recess. PA94-0043, Minor Conditional Use Permit To locate a billlard parlor and video arcade with the concurrent sale of beer, and to allow minors in the establishment before 10:00 P.M., in the existing building in a commercial shopping center Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report and advised of letters received in opposition to the project and in favor of the project. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing. Bruce Curnick, 41593 Winchester Road,//210, Temecula, attorney for the applicant, offered to answer any questions. Linda Spoon, 39930 Whitewood Road, Temecula, spoke in favor of Klassic Shotz Billards. Bill Reyman, Jr., 22245 Lemon Street, Lake Elsinore, spoke in favor of Klassic Shotz Billards. Mark Esbensen, 27311 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 103, Temecula, property landlord, spoke in favor of Klassic Shotz Billards. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed project and expressed concerns as follows: traffic concerns, gang related activities, increased neighborhood crime, sale of alcohol in the presence of minors, vandalism, etc: Leroy Hall, 29778 Marhill Circle, Temecula. Keith Nielsen, Bradley Road, Sun City, representing MADD. William Cochrane, 29605 Solana Way,//U-7, Temecula. Steve Chamberlin, 29385 Via Norte, Temecula. PCMINOa/01/94 5 09123194 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1994 Rick Mossa, 34795 Sally Street, Winchester. David Ciabattoni, 2951~0 Avenida Del Sol, Temecula. Erik Krag, 29817 Via Placia [:)el Sol, Temecula. Dan Atwood, 26631 Ynez Road, Temecula, representing Toyota of Temecula James Field, 41651 Chablis Court, Temecula. Dirk Wegner, 31126 Del Rey Road, Temecula. Ken Wade, 29605 Solana Way, #W-6, spoke in favor of Klassic Shotz Billards. Bruce Curnick, representing the applicant, stated the applicant must satisfy all requirements and conditions prior to approval, which he feels the applicant has done. Mr. Curnick said his office overlooks one of the operating billlard parlors in Temecula and said he often visits the establishment which he feels is operated with a professional atmosphere. Commissioner Hoagland said he spoke with some of the other business owners in the center who have expressed enthusiasm over the proposed project. He said he did visit similar establishments in the City and found the activities going on did not raise any concern with him. Chairman Ford said he feels the operator has done a good job operating their current establishment however, he feels the billlard hall should not allow minors as long as there is the sale of alcohol. Commissioner Fahey said she believes the issue is whether the project is designed as an adult facility or a facility to attract youth, She said she feels the sale of alcohol is not appropriate at a business that is designed to attract children. Commissioner Fahey suggested the project be conditioned to the sale of alcohol after 10:00 P.M. only, when minors are no longer permitted. Assistant City Attorney Diaz advised the Commission that a C.U.P. only requires a majority of the quorum. He said the State determines whether or not a business is appropriate to be operated with the sale of alcohol, therefore, the Commission must deny the application on a basis other than the sale of alcoholic beverages. He explained there is evidence in the record which supports a denial and an approval. Mr. Diaz said the approval authority for the sale of alcohol is with the state. He said the evidence presented relating to past experience with a local arcade, the concern expressed by the auto dealers regarding high value stock being exposed to potential problems and the distance between the residential use and the proposed use, could provide the basis for a recommendation of denial. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Chairman Ford to close the public hearing and deny the project based on the concept of the project as described and its close proximity to residential area and the businesses in the proposed area. PCMINO8/01/94 6 09/23/94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1994 AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Hoagland ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer Chairman Ford declared a 5 minute recess. 8. PA94-0048. Conditional Use Permit To construct a 43,500 square foot car dealership with related service operations on a vacant 4 acre parcel in the General Commercial Zone. Planning Assistant Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. He stated the primary issues pertaining to the project are access and roof top parking. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing. Dennis Flynn, architect representing the applicant, asked for deletion of Condition 19 which he feels would obscure the view of cars for sale. Mr. Flynn expressed a concern regarding Condition No. 26 and asked that the applicant be allowed to meet with the Planning Director at a latter date to discuss the specifics of the performance securities. Frank Gorman, GW Engineering, 41555 E. Florida Avenue, Hemet, advised the Commission regarding Condition 51, the entire parcel will be improved therefore this Condition is not necessary. Mr. Gorman asked that Condition 62(a) be amended and the words "or as approved by the Department of Public Works" added to the end of the Condition. 'Regarding the relocation of the access point, Mr. Gorman explained the underlying map shows a restricted access along Ynez Road except in two locations, he said explained the purpose of moving the access point was to allow direct access to the service area and the other is because the lot slopes away and which causes steep slopes coming off the streets. Planning Director Gary Thornhill explained regarding Condition 19, Ordinance 348 speaks to parking lot and therefore staff will support modifying the Condition by deleting the height requirement. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to close the public hearing and approve modification to Condition 19, deleting the height requirement of the landscape berm and Adoot the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA94-0048, Conditional Use Permit and Adopt; Resolution No. 94-26 approving PA94-0048, Conditional Use Permit, based upon the Analysis and Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval. PCMINOalOl194 7 09~23~94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT AUGUST 1, 1994 Director Thornhill advised the Commission the City Attorney has offered to review the changes in the Brown Act with any Commissioners who are interested. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION None OTHER BUSINESS None ADJOURNMENT Chairman Ford declared the meeting adjourned at 9:27 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on Monday, September 19, 1994, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford Secretary PCMIN08/O1/94 8 09/23/94 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, September 19, 1994, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California, The meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Ford. PRESENT: 3 ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Slaven, Webster, Ford Blair, Fahey Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Grog Diaz and Senior Planner Debbie Ubnos~<e. PUBLIC COMMENT None COMMISSION BUSINESS 2. Approval of Aoenda Chairman Ford recommended Items 1, and 3. be heard after the Public Hearing Items. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, seconded by Commissioner Webster to re- order agenda Items 1 and 3 to follow Item Number 9 on the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven, Webster, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey 4. Director's Hearina Update Report included in the agenda package. Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:10 P.M. and was no longer considered absent. PCMIN09119/94 1 09~28~94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5. Memorandum of Understandino For Access Onto State Route 79 Principal Engineer Ray Casey presented the staff report. Chairman Ford questioned why the staff is not making recommendations on Highway 79 South, Tract 23299, and Paloma Del Sol project, prior to reviewing the traffic study. Engineer Casey said at this time staff can only support a right in at location 9 (EB) and 10.1 of the staff report. However, staff has no opinion on whether it should be a right-in only or a right-in and right-out. Commissioner Fahey asked how the areas that have not been resolved are handled with the approval of the MOU. Engineer Casey said staff would like the Commission to provide direction to staff on Items 9 EB and 10.1. He explained the issue staff has concerning these two items is local circulation and access to the Highway itself with respect to the commercial center. Tract 23299 (9EB) or (County Glen Way), is proposed for a full turning movement access with a traffic signal. Should that be approved, there may be enough room for cars exiting the commercial center to get over to Margarita Road and make a left turn or a U-turn, subject to further traffic analysis. He said without that full turning movement access and the traffic signal, staff does not feel they can support a right-in/right-out however, the property owner's Traffic Engineer has not as yet provided staff with adequate analysis to support the right-in/right-outs. Staff has the same concerns with the Paloma Del Sol project shown as 10.1. Commissioner Fahey said she feels comfortable allowing staff to make the determination on these two issues prior to sending the MOU on to the City Council. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the Memorandum of Understanding with staff's clarification on Items 9 EB and 10.1 prior to presenting the MOU to the City Council. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair PCMIN09/19194 2 09~28~94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PA N0.94-0078 (Minor Chancle - Tract 23100), PA No. 94-0079 (Minor Chancle - Tract 23101, PA No. 94-0080 (Revised Tract MaD 23101) Bramalea California Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. Emile Haddad, 100 N. Bayview Circle, Newport Beach, representing Bramalea Homes, stated he has no objection to Condition 11 regarding the Gnatcatcher, as long as the Gnatcatcher continues to be listed as an endangered species. Additionally he said he received a FAX on this date from staff regarding a request by the Rancho California Water District to construct a 30" water line in Butterfield Stage Road and they have stated that they would be willing to be reimbursed for the upsizing. The applicant requested they be allowed to finalize the mechanism for reimbursement with RCWD. Additionally, he said a portion of Butterfield Stage Road is already constructed and he would like to verify whether the existing waterline is 30". John Moramarco, 32720 Rancho California Road, Temecula, representing Callaway Winery, asked if the lots along Butterfield Stage Road will remain one acre lots. Chairman Ford confirmed that the area is planned as open space for the homeowners. Commissioner Webster suggested Condition No. 11 not be deleted since the Gnatcatcher has not been removed from the Endangered Species list. Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz said it will be impossible at this time to determine what the status of the Gnatcatcher will be in the future. It was moved by Commissioner Webster, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to close the public hearing and approve Planning Application No. PA94-0078, Planning Application No. PA94-0079 and Adopt Resolution No. 94-28, approving Planning Application No. PA94-0080 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair PCMIN09/19/94 3 09/28194 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7. SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 Chanae of Zone No. 26 Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Slaven to close the public hearing and recommend Adoption of the Negative Declaration for Change of Zone No. 26 and Adopt Resolution No. 94-29 recommending the adoption of Ordinance No. 94- amending the offical zoning map of the City of Temecula for Change of Zone Application No. 26 based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair Vestino Tract MaD NO, 25063 and Chenoe of Zone No. 5598 Director Thornhill advised the Commission the applicant has submitted a request for continuance on this item. Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. He advised staff has received one letter in opposition to the proposed project from Alfred and Judith DeForrest and Connie Miller. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing. Larry Markham, of Markham Associates, advised that the property is currently under ownership of the FDIG. He said the property is currently in escrow and the purchaser has been made aware of the general plan designation on the property and that staff is putting together a special study requirement. Mr. Markham requested a continuance off calendar until the special study has been completed. Director Thornhill advised that consultants have been interviewed for the special study of the Nicolas Valley area and staff anticipates it will take five to six months to complete the study. Jim Miller, 39355 Pourroy Road, Temecula, expressed his ol~position to the proposed project densities. PCMIN09119/94 4 09128/94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 Mike KnowIron, 39130 Pala Vista Road, Temecula, expressed opposition to the proposed project density and presented a petition of opposition from the surrounding property owners. Commissioner Slaven said she understands the issue before both the property owners and the residents surrounding the property, however she said she supports staff's recommendation for denial. Commissioner Fahey said the proposed project is not in compliance with the General Plan and probably will not be in compliance as a result of the special study. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Slaven to close the public hearing and Adopt Resolution No. 94-30 denying Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25063 and Adopt Resolution No. 94-31 denying Change of Zone No. 5598 based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: PA94-0017 Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford None Blair PCMIN09/19/94 5 09~28~94 Commissioner Webster asked if the County has provided any response regarding their interpretation of the fees. Director Thornhill stated the City has been in disagreement with the County regarding fees since the City's incorporation and it is the City's position that once it incorporated and was providing the levels of service to the developments, the City should collect the fees. He added that the City believes the clause that is contained in the Development Agreements previously negotiated with the County is improper. Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz said the County has been consistent in their position that they are entitled to fees as a matter of contract law. The City Attorney's office has reviewed the provisions of the government code as it pertains to Development Agreements and the incorporation of new cities and has determined that once incorporated, the City is entitled to 100% of the fees. He added that the developer has agreed to provide funds to defend the City's position should the City go to court in defense of their position on the fees. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing. Planning Director Gary Thornhill presented the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 Dale Gleed, 12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200, Del Mar, representing the applicant Coscan Davidson Homes, said they have worked with the City Planning Department on the agreement and are satisfied with the fee requirement. Chairman Ford recalled that at the time the project went before the Council there were discussions regmding minimum home sizes and he is concerned because there are no provisions in the Development Agreement which addresses the size issue. Dale Gleed stated the house sizes proposed range from 1000 to 1500 square feet. Chairman Ford said he would like to see the Council's comments regarding the unit size tied to the Development Agreement. Director Thornhill said he would need to research the minutes of the Council meeting to determine what their intent was and bring that information back at another hearing. He said he doesn't recall any precise comments regarding square footage. Dale Gleed said the plan today is the same as the original concept plan, however, if the applicant changed the plans, they would have to bring that back to the Planning Department. Mr. Gleed said he would be willing to agree to a 1000 square foot minimum. Commissioner Fahey said the issues raised by Chairman Ford are important and staff should review prior to sending this item forward to the City Council. It was moved by Com~nissioner Fahey, seconded by Chairman Ford to Adopt the Negative Declaration for PA94-0017 and Adopt Resolution No. 94-32 recommending approval of PA94-0017 by City Council, based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report and subject to the Conditions of Approval and direct staff to follow up on the comments made during the City Council hearing regarding minimum house sizes. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair 1. Election of Chairperson and Vice Chairoerson It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, seconded by Commissioner Webster to appoint Commissioner Steve Ford as Chairperson and Commissioner Fahey as Vice Chairperson. PCMINOg/TgI94 6 09/28194 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The motion carried as follows: SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Blair Brown Act Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz provided an overview of the modifications and changes to the Brown. Act. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT Planning Director Gary Thornhill reported the following: Consultants have been interviewed for the Old Town Street Scal~e Program. A selection has been made however, cannot be announced at this time. NBS Lowry has been selected as the consultant for the Nicolas Valley Land Use Study. There is an American Banning Association Planning Commissioner's Workshop on October 1, 1994, and if any Commissioner is interested in attending they should notify staff as soon as possible. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION None OTHER BUSINESS None PCMINO9/19194 7 09~28~94 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ADJOURNMENT Chairman Ford declared the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held on Monday, November 7, 1994, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 Chairman Steve Ford Secretary PCMIN09/19/94 8 09128194 ITEM NO. 3 PRESENT: 4 ABSENT: I JOHNSON RANCH PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES JULY 28,1994 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Fahey, Hoagland and Blair COMMISSIONERS: Salyer Associate Planner, Saied Naaseh, presented the Staff Report. Jim Fergus gave a brief overview of the project. Larry Markham, Project Consultant, discussed all the approved and proposed Specific Plans in the vicinity of the project. He indicated that the nearest winery is one Section or one mile away from the site. He also talked about the open space connecting Skunk Hollow with Lake Skinner and the proposed Domenigoni Reservoir through Johnson Ranch. Chairman Ford requested information regarding the land uses abutting the site. Mr. Markham explained that Mountain View Specific Plan is approved to the west of the site with approved vesting tentative tract maps, Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan is being proposed to the south, preserve area and estate lots are located to the north and estate lots are to the east. John Canty, Project Engineer, explained project drainage through the Tucalota and Santa Gertrudis Creeks and explained the access to the site. Access will be provided from Butterfield Stage Road to Washington Street to the north and south, minor rural roads to the east, Murrieta Hot Springs and the extension of Buck Road to the west. Chairman Ford inquired about the acquired right of way for the extension of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Buck Road. Mr. Canty replied that the Murrieta Hot Springs right of way was secured but the extension of Buck Road is not. Mr. Canty explained the first phase of the project (500 units) will be using the existing water tank on the Mountain view site; however, eventually the project will be self sufficient with the construction of two water tanks, one on-site to the north and the other off-site to the east of the site. He also indicated that the water system is adequate to serve this project and is acceptable to Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). Commissioner Hoagland asked why the site was not being annexed to the Rancho California Water District's boundary? Mr. Canty replied that it is not required. Bob Luchens, a nearby resident, asked why was the water tank for Mountain View used when it was not designed for this project and was paid for by Assessment District 1 61 funds? Mr. Canty replied that the project will use it only for the first 500 units. Mr. Canty talked about the sewer system and explained that the site drains southeast to northwest. Commissioner Hoagland asked if the sewer system is adequate and whether the project is within AD 161 ? Mr. Canty replied that the sewer system for the project is adequate, is acceptable to EMWD and the project is outside the boundaries of AD 161. Mr. Canty also stated that EMWD oversized the sewer line on Murrieta Hot Springs Road through AD 161 funds. The first phase of the project (500 units) will be served by a gravity sewer line which would carry the sewage to a lift station and it would take it Murrieta Hot Springs Road sewer line; however, future facilities will be built for the project. Bob Davis , Project Traffic Engineer, explained the traffic impacts of the project. Three different analysis were included in the Traffic study, existing plus project conditions, 2015 forecast and area build-out forecast. The primary access to the site is provided through Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Nicolas Road, Butterfield Stage Road, Washington Street, Promontory Road and Borel Road. The Project will generate approximately 61,500 trips per day. The 2015 with project conditions were better than the without project conditions since the project will serve the needs of the surrounding communities. The cost to provide infrastructure is estimated to be $45,000,000.00 with the first phase including $7,000,000.00, The Anza Road connection in the General Plan was forecasted to produce 4000-7000 trips per day. These trips were mainly generated by Johnson Ranch which was a smaller project than the currently proposed project. A General Plan Amendment will be necessary to implement the project. The phasing of improvements will be by roadway utilization. A two lane improvement to Murrieta Hot Springs Road will connect the site to the existing Murrieta Hot Springs Road for the first 500 units without needing a secondary access, Subsequent focused Traffic Impact Reports will be prepared for projects that generate over 400 peak hour trips. These reports will identify the necessary mitigation measures. Commissioner Blair asked if the traffic study supported the elimination of Anza Road. Mr, Davis indicated that this road was never analyzed in the traffic study, since the applicant did not propose it as a part of his project. Mr. Davis also added that Anza Road has always been on the County General Plan but has never had high numbers assigned to it. R:~LANNIN~O~NSON.M~ 9/22/94 kJb 2 Chairman Ford indicated that the 2000 daily trips generated by the project on Borel Road seems to be a lot of trips for a two (2) lane dirt road. Mr. Davis indicated that those trips are generated because the project becomes a magnet to attract trips. Chairman Ford asked Staff whether the Anza Road connection is necessary. Mr. Casey replied that it is. John Yeager, Project Attorney, talked about project implementation, land dedication and financing. Over 400 acres of open space is proposed on the project. Mr. Yeager indicated that agencies in need of land are usually cash poor; therefore, Johnson Ranch will be dedicating an open space corridor to the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA). This dedication will take place as the project is granted approvals. Johnson Ranch wants to help preserve this open space and dedicate it to RCHCA in return for credits towards applicable fees. The value of the open space is approximately $4,000,000.00. Financing the infrastructure was discussed by Mr. Yeager. This project is self- sufficient in its infrastructure and will not depend on other projects to build the necessary infrastructure. In order for the infrastructure to be built, the project needs to approved. The Development Agreement will ensure building of the infrastructure. The money needed to build the infrastructure will come from some form of public financing method provided that the sizing and timing of the infrastructure is reasonable. Additional funds may come from reimbursement agreements. The issuance of the bonds need to be phased as the improvements are needed. AD 161 bonds were issued too soon and the same mistake should not be repeated. Commissioner Hoagland asked what kind of public financing is the project proposing7 Mr. Yeager replied that Assessment District is the first choice with Community Facilities District being the second choice. Commissioner Hoagland asked how the schools will be built? Mr. Yeager replied that they will be built with a combination of dedication of land and payment of fees. Jim O'Neal, Project Land Planner, talked about the land planning aspects of the project. Mr. O'Neal demonstrated through a slide show that most of the project area will not be visible from the surrounding properties, except the southern portion of the site which lies lower than the surroundings and will be visible from the surrounding homes. Mr. O'Neal also talked about the park system and their locations which included eight (8), three (3) acre neighborhood parks; one, four (4) acre neighborhood park; three (3), six (6) acre parks and one, fifteen (15) acre park. Commissioner Blair asked how fire hazards will be mitigated. Mr. Naaseh replied that the EIR requires a 100 foot wet zone. Mr. Fergus indicated that the proposed density is needed to make the project feasible, the Village Center helps to reduce trips and Johnson Ranch is a self sufficient community. Commissioner Hoagland left the meeting at 7:35 PM. Chairman Ford requested the public to come forward to express their concerns. Jerry Butkiewicz, 37872 Avenida Armada, expressed concerns about the availability and design of playing fields for kids and also was concerned about the traffic on the two lane Borel Road. David Robinson, 39600 Ave Arizona, expressed the following concerns: the area is rural now and should remain rural; the drainage of the project into Santa Gertrudis and Tucalota Creeks and their ability to handle the increased run-off is questionable and should be analyzed; the open space land being dedicated is too steep; the 100 foot wet zone is not adequate; Anza Road connection needs to be examined and how will the Rancho California and Winchester off ramps be able to handle the extra 61,000 additional daily trips associated with this project? Cindy Bush, 32775 Bootleg Road, indicated that she agrees with the statements made by the two previous speakers and had additional concerns regarding the Geologic Hazard Area, the necessity to install a fence around the Santa Gertrudis Creek to prevent kids from drowning, the inadequacy of the sewer system and where all the wild life will go. Ms. Bush concluded that French Valley residents do not want this project, development should not jump into rural areas and development should only be allowed next to existing development. Ms. Bush also added that the Winchester 1800 Specific Plan was recently denied by the County Planning Commission. Ann Buford, 38951 Avenida Arriba, indicated that there is too much traffic on Rancho California Road, this project is taking an otherwise open space area and the rural atmosphere of the area should be preserved. She also wondered why a lot of people cannot build their homes because of K-rat and why big developers like Johnson Ranch are being allowed to develop their projects. John Rockwell, P.O. Box 1018, indicated that Tucalota Creek is not on the Johnson Ranch site and is a larger creek off-site and because of flooding he had no access or utilities for 60 days, He was also concerned about the children from urbanization who will vandalize his property and asked whether a wall will be built to protect him. He also wondered if all the concerns brought up tonight will make any difference when voting on the project. Commissioner Blair indicated that the revised plan was a better plan; however, her concerns remain the same about premature development and leapflogging. She also indicated concerns about the circulation and wondered whether the project should be approved now. Commissioner Fahey indicated that this project is premature development. Chairman Ford indicated that we should listen to the public, address off-site circulation concerns regarding improvements to Borel road and the Anza connection, clarify the Tucalota Creek status, the adequacy of the fire safety wet zone, the proximity of the closest Fire Station and the geological concerns. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM. Chairman Steve Ford Secretary ITEM NO. 4 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning November 7, 1994 Director's Hearing Case Update The following cases were heard at Director's Hearings in September and October. 1994: 1. PA94-0071, 2rid Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 226 · three commercial buildings 2. PA94-0049, Revised Permit for gas station renovation · Chevron USA Attachment: 1. Planning Director's Hearing Action Agendas for September and October - Blue Page 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S HF, ARING ACTION AGENDAS FOR J'LrNE, 1994 ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HI,.ARING REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 15, 1994 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL - MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS 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. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be ffiled 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. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA94-0071 Ted Zonos Southweste~y comer of Margarita Road and Pauba Road Second Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 226 to construct three commercial buildings totaling 27,000 square feet Re-Certify Previously Adopted Negative Declaration Craig Ruiz Approve ACTION: CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 7, 1994 PLANNING COM1VIISSION AGENDA - TO BE RE-NOTICED ADJOURN1VIENT R:\D1KHEARXAGh'~I)A\9-15-94.AGN 10125194 klb ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20, 1994 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL - MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: DebbieUbnoske, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS 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. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item no.__~t listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed 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 flied with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. 94-0049 - Revised Permit with Public Hearing Chevron USA Northeast comer of Rancho California Road and Jefferson Avenue - 28900 Rancho California Road Renovation to existing gas station. Install new gas dispensers, new underground gas tanks, new canopy, new signage upgrade the landscaping, and expand the mini-mart. Categorical Exemption per Section 15301(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner Approve ACTION: APPROVED ADJOURNMENT R:\DIRftEAR~AGENDA\I0-20-94.AGN 10/25/94 ITEM NO. 5 MEMORANDUM Planning Commission FROM: Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning DATE: November 7, 1994 SUBJECT: Planning Application No. 94-0112-A Forty-Five {45) Foot High, Approximately Eighty-Six (86) Square Foot Freestanding Freeway Oriented Sign for Chevron located on the northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Front Street Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT Staff to approve Planning Application No.94-0112 for a Forty-Five (45) foot high, approximately eighty-six (86) square foot freestanding freeway oriented sign for Chevron BACKGROUND The request is made in conjunction with Planning Application No. 94-0049- Revised Permit (Chevron), for the renovation of an existing gas station, which was approved by the Planning Director on October 20, 1994. The renovation will include the installation of new gas dispensers, new underground gas tanks, a new canopy, new signage (gasoline prices, station identification, canopy signage and wall mounted signage), an upgrade to the existing landscaping, and an expansion to the existing mini-mart. The application (Planning Application No. 94-0112), for the freestanding, freeway oriented sign was submitted to the Planning Department on November 2, 1994. This project is before the Planning Commission because current Department policy requires the Commission to provide direction to Staff with respect to freeway oriented signs. Currently, there is a freestanding sign on the site that is proposed to be removed and replaced with a new sign. The owner has expressed concerns over its effectiveness in attracting motorists from the freeway because the sign faces Rancho California Road and has limited visibility from Interstate 15. Planning Department policy requires a flag test be conducted on for freeway oriented signs. On October 31,1994 a flag test was conducted to determine the appropriate height for the sign. Results of the test indicated that the sign was visible from northbound Interstate 15 at a height of 45 feet in height at a distance of 2/10 of a mile from the freeway off-ramp. Typically, the Planning Department uses a criteria of 3/10 of a mile from the freeway off-ramp for visibility criteria. The sign was not visible at this distance either northbound or southbound, being obscured by buildings, topography, and/or trees. Based upon a visual analysis, the sign at forty-five feet in height would not appear to be higher than other signs in the area (Reference Attachment No. 1 .c.). Although Staff has concerns regarding the visual impact of a forty-five foot high sign along Rancho California Road, it is staff's opinion that the request is warranted. However, the view impacts from Rancho California Road should be taken into consideration by the Commission in their review of the request. Attachments: Exhibits - Blue Page 3 a. Site Plan b. Elevations c. Flag test picture ATTACHMENT NO. 1 EXHIBITS CITY OF TEMECULA SIGN FRONT STREET <----Z CASE NO. - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0112 EXHIBIT - A P' '~NNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 7, 1994 SITE PLAN R:\STAFFRFI'XlI2PA94.PC 1112194 mf CITY OF TEMECULA Z FINISHED GRADE CASE NO. - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0112 EXHIBIT - B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 7, 1994 ELEVATION R:',STAFFRPT\lI2PA94,R:: 11/2/94 mf X LL! ITEM NO. 6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 7, 1994 Planning Application No.: PA94-0071, Second Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 226 Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: RE-AFFIRM the previously adopted Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 226, and ADOPT Resolution No. 94- approving PA94-0071, Second Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 226, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and APPROVE Planning Application No. PA94-0071, Second Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 226, subject to the attached Conditions of Approvai. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Ted Zonos REPRESENTATIVE: AI Ogle, Lee & Associates PROPOSAL: The construction of three commercial buildings totaling approximately 27,000 square feet. LOCATION: The southwesterly corner of Pauba Road and Margarita Road. EXISTING ZONING: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: R-R (Rural Residential) R-R (Rural Residential) S-P (Specific Plan No. 219) R-R (Rural Residential) PROPOSED ZONING: C~p-S GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: N-C (Neighborhood Commercial) R:\STAFFRPT~?IPA~t.PC 11/1/94 Idb 1 EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Sports Park Single Family Homes Single Family Homes Single Family Homes PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area Total Site Area Building Area 18% Landscape Area 30% Paved Area 52% Parking Required 137 Parking Provided 137 Standard 113 Handicapped 4 3.45 acres 26,920 square feet 45,077 square feet 77,810 square feet BACKGROUND This project was originally approved by the Temecula Planning Commission on August 5, 1991. The first Extension of Time was approved by the Commission on September 20, 1993. An application for a second Extension of Time was formally submitted to the Planning Department on August 4, 1994. The project was deemed complete and subsequently scheduled for a Planning Director's hearing on September 15, 1994. At the September 1E meeting, several surrounding property owners expressed opposition to the extension of time for the project. The opposition primarily centered around the perceived incompatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhoods (Paloma del Sol, Santiago Estates, Santiago Ranchos) and the potential for future uses to pose potential health and safety risks due to the proximity to two high schools and the City Sports Park. Because of this opposition, the Planning Director decided to bring the matter before the Planning Commission. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the construction of three commercial "spec" buildings totalling 26,920 square feet. ANALYSIS Neiqhborhood Comoatibilitv Several neighbors who spoke in opposition of the project at the Planning Director's Hearing felt that the project is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The General Plan states that neighborhood commercial centers are intended to ".. . provide retail or convenience services for the local residents in the surrounding neighborhood." The General Plan also states that centers" . . are developed on less than ten acres of land and range between 25,000and 75,000square feet in size." The size and scale of the proposed project meets the these standards. In addition, the site has been designed to meet the standards set by Ordinance No. 348. R:~STAFF~71PA94.1K~ 1111194 Idb 2 The neighbors also expressed concern that potential future uses locating in the center could sell alcohol (see Attachment No. 3 - Potential Future Uses). The neighbors feel that alcoho, sales in close proximity to two high schools would be unsafe. Alcohol sales may be permitted or conditionally permitted at this site by Ordinance No. 348. However, current City Ordinances require a conditional use permit and a special licenses frorn the Police Department for these types of uses. Also, the Alcohol Beverage Control Board would also review any request for a license to sell alcohol. Finally, the Draft Development Code contains provisions requiring a conditional use permit for alcohol selling uses in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. Staff feels that both present and future requirements provide for adequate review of any alcohol selling uses. This future review of specific issues will insure the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The project site is zoned C-P-S and the General Plan Land Use Designation is Neighborhood Commercial. The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the General Plan and the C-P-S Zone of Ordinance 348. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION For the original approval of this project, a Negative Declaration was issued under the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Because the project is unchanged from that which was originally approved, no further environmental assessment on Planning Application No. PA94 0071 is required. Mitigation measures contained in the conditions ~ f approval will mitigate potential impacts created by the project to a level of insignificance. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The proposed commercial retail buildings have been designed with sensitivity relative to their visibility from Pauba and Margarita Roads. The project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and the General Plan Land Use Designation of Neighborhood Commercial. FINDINGS The findings for the original approval for Plot Plan No. 226 and Planning Application No. PA93-0137, First Extension of Time are found to remain valid except as amended heroin. No subsequent changes are proposed in the project which would require revisions to the previously certified Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in the previous approval of this project. Planning Application No. PA94-0071, Second Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 226 is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The size and scale of the development is intenc',,=d to meet the needs of the surrounding neighborhood as required by the General Pla;.. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely a'rect the public health or general welfare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.1 and 18.30. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the use does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The project is compatible with surrounding proposed land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size aria shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348. The project has acceptable access to existing and proposed dedicated right-of-ways which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic as ewdenced on the underlying Tentative Parcel Map showing access to Pauba Road and Margarita Road. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmen',al documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. PC Resolution No. 94-__ - Blue Page 5 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 List of Potential Uses - Blue Page 13 Exhibits - Blue Page 14 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Site Plan ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- A'I'TACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0071, SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLOT PLAN NO ~6 TO CONSTRUCT THREE CO1VIMF~RCIAL B[ffLnINGS TOTALING ~,9~0 SQUARE FEET ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 3.4~ ACRES LOCATED ON ~ SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASS'F~SSOR'S PARCEL NO.94~-110-003 WIIEREAS, Ted Zonos fried Planning Application No. Plarmhlg Application No. PA94- 0071 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WllF. REAS, Planning Application No. PA94-0071 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WWF~REAS, the Planning Director considered Planning Application No. PA94-0071 on September 15, 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; WHF. REAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing for Planning Application No. PA94. 0071, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Planning Director continued the hearing to the Planning Commission: WltF. REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0071 on November 7, 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; WIt~,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 Planning Application No. PA94-0071; NOW, TFWREFORE, Tit'F, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA94-0071 makes the following fmdings: A. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be apptoved unless the followin[ fmdings can be made: 1. The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. B. The Planning Commission, in approving proposed Planning Application No PA94-0071, makes the following specific findings, to wit: 1. The findings for the original approval for Plot Plan No. 226 and Planning Application No. PA93-0137, First Extension of Time are found to remain valid except as amended herein. 2. No subsequent changes are proposed in the project which would require revisions to the previously certified Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental impacts not considered in the previous approval of this project. 3. Planning Application No. PA94-0071, Second Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 226 is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Neighborhood Commercial. The size and scale of the development is intended to meet the needs of the surrounding neighborhood as required by the General Plan. 4. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or general welfare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.1 and 18.30. 5. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the use does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the 6. The project is compatible with surrounding p~oposed land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties. 7. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, an:l intensity of use due to the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348. 8. The project has acceptable access to existing an{l proposed dedicated right- of-ways which are open to, and axe useable by, vehicular traffic as evil enced on the underlying Tentative Parcel Map showing access to Pauba Road and Margarita Road. R:\STAFFRPTX71PA94.PC 11/1/94 klb 7 9. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmenta{ documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA94-0071 Second Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 226 as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. D. The Planning Commission in approving the certification of the Negative Declaration of environmental impact under the provisions of the California Environmenta~ Quality Act, specifically finds that the approval of this Conditional Use Permit will have a di minimis impact on fish and wildlife resources. The Planning Commission specifically finds that in considering the record as a whole, the project involves no potential adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. This is based on the fact that this is located in an urban area and is primarily inffl; in nature. The Planning Commission further finds that Ted Zonos is the project proponent and the site is located on the southwesterly comer of Margarita Road and Pauba Road in the City of Temecula, California. The project includes the construction of three commercial buildings and that all of the same are located in the County of Riverside. Furthermore, the Planning Commission fmds that an initial study has been prepared by the City Staff and considered by the Planning Commission which has been the basis to evaluate the potentaft for adverse impact or the environment and forms the basis for the Planning Commission' s determination, including the information contained in the public hearing records, on which a Negative Declaration of environmental impact was issued and this di minimis finding is made. In addition, the Planning Commission fmds that there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will hay,~ any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources, or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. Finally, the Planning Commission fmds that the City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5(d). Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this projec~ 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 '.~ Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA94-0071 to construct three commercial buildings totalling 26,920 square feet located southwesterly comer of Marga~ta Road and Pauba Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 945-110-003 subject to the following condit:ons: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a pan hereof. R:\STAFFRPT',71PA94.1~C 1111194 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7tb lay of November, 1994 STEVEN J. FORD CHA]I~AN I 1TEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was dul3 adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of November, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNHILL SECRETARY ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT171PA94.]?C 11/1/94 I~Ab 10 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PA94-0071, Second Extension of Time Project Description: Second one-year extension of time for Plot Plan No. 226, the construction of three commercial retail buildings totaling 26,920square feet on a 3.45 parcel in the Scenic Highway Tourist Commercial tC-P-S) zone. Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-110-003 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General ReQuirements 1. PA94-0071, Second Extension of Time shall comply with all Conditions of Approval for Planning Application No. PA93-0137 and Plot Plan No. 226 (copies of which are attached) unless superseded by these Conditions of Approval. 2. The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA94-0071 is for the construction of three commercial buildings totaling 26,920 square feet. 3. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless tne City of Temecula, its officers, employees, and agents from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its officers, employees, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body including the actions of such City's voters concerning Planning Application No PA94-0071. 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 th~ 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. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 4. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees. 5. The applicant shall mal~e application and pay all applicable ~ees for a Consistency Check with the Department of Building and Safety Departme~,.t. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 6. An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage or a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. 7. Each individual use must apply for and receive all necessary approvals, including, but not limited to Tenant Improvement and Certificate of Occupancy permits. 8. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 9. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 10. 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. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT No new comments COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 11. The developer shall be responsible for the maintenance of all perimeter landscaping. 12. Any landscaped medians proposed for dedication to the City for Maintenance purposes shall be designed and constructed to City Standards in concurrence with the street improvements. Construction plans for proposed TCSD maintenance areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Service. 13. A Class II Bike Lane shall be provided on Winchester Road prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 14. The developer shall dedicate street lights to the City prior to issuance of Certificate o? Occupancy. OTHER AGENCIES 15. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Metropolitan Water Department transmittal dated September 27, 1994, a c3py of which is attached. MWD METROPOLITAN WATER D/STRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Office of The General Manager RECEIVED SF-P28Lq,. SeDtember 2'7, 1994 Mr. Craig Ruiz City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Dear Mr. Ruiz: Notice of Public Hearing for PlanninQ Application No. PA94-0071 We have received the Notice of Public Hearing (Notice) for Planning Application No. PA94-0071. The project proponent proposes to construct three commercial buildings totaling 27,000 square feet in the City of Temecula. The comments herein represent the Metropolitan Water District's (Metropolitan) response as a potentially affected public agency. Our review of the Notice indicates that the proposed project site lies between Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline Nos. 1 and 2 and San Diego Pipeline No. 3. The attached map shows Metropolitan's facilities in relation to the project site. Metropolitan requests that the Initial Study indicate that any proposed use of Metropolitan's easements, particularly those resulting in modifications to the existing grade and/or placement of parking lots, road crossings, etc., may require the installation of protective structures over Metropolitan's facilities affected by the proposed project. Additionally, Metropolitan requests that the Initial Study indicate that any mitigation measures necessary to protect these facilities are part of the proposed project. Metropolitan, as a responsible agency, will be utilizing the City's Negative Declaration to approve any modifications to its facilities or rights-of-way proposed by the project. In order to avoid potential conflicts with Metropolitan's facilities, we request that preliminary prints of all improvement plans for any activity in the area of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way be submitted for our review and written approval. You may obtain detailed prints of drawings of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way by calling Metropolitan's Substructures Information Line at (213) 217-6564. A statement of guidelines for development in Metropolitan's facilities area, fee properties or easements has been attached for your information. THE METRQPOUTAtl WATER DISTRICT OF SDUTHEAN CALIFORNIA -2- September 27, 19 We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. Leslie Barrett from Metropolitan's Substructures Section at (213) 217-6245, or me at (213) 217-6272. Very truly yours, ,~/a~t~d!at~ ~4~ , hleen M. Kunysz Manager, Environmental Affairs Attachments ATTACHMENT NO. 3 LIST OF POTENTIAL USES R:\STAFFRPTVTIPA~4.PC 11/1194 Idb 1 ~ ARTICLE IXb C-P-S ZONE $CENIC HIGHWAY COI~HERCIAL) The following regulations shall apply in all C-P-S Zones: SECTION 9.50. USES PERNIl'rED. The following uses Ere permitted, offiy in enclosed buildings with not more than 2DO square feet of outside storage or display of materials 8ppur~enant to such use, provided a plot plan shall have been approved pursuant to the provisions Of Section 18.30 of this ordinance: (1) A~bulance services Appl i ante stores, household (4) Art supply shops and studios (5} Auditoriums and conference rooms (6} Automob.lie parts and supply stores {7) Bakery goods distributors (8) Bakery shops, including baking only when incidental to retail sales on the pramises {9) Banks and financial institutions {10) Barber and beauty shops (11} Bars and cocktail lounges (12} Bicycle sales and rentals (13} Billlard and pool halls {14} Blueprint and duplicating services {15} Book stores and binders (16) Bowling alleys (17} Catering services (1B) Ceramic sales and manufacturl ng for on-si te sal as, provided the total volume of kiln space does not exceed sixteen {16) cubic feet {lg} Cleaning and dyetng shops (20) Clothing stores {21} Confectionery or candy stores {22} Costume design studios 23} Dance halls ..ltc.t.ss.ns Bepartment stores Dry goods stores 28} Electrical substations IItEmployment agencies Escort bureaus (31) Feed and grain.sales Florist shops (34) Food markets and frozen food lockers (35) Gift shops (36) Hardware stores (37) Household goods sales and repair, including but not limited to, new and used appliances, furniture, carpets, draperies, laps, radios, and television sets. including repair thereof (38) Hobby shops (39) Ice cream shops (40) Ice sales, not including ice plants (41) Interior decorating shops {42) Jewelry stores with incidental repairs (43) Labor tamples {44) Laboratories, film, dental. medical, research or testing (45} Laundries and laundr.nats (46) Leather goods stores (47} Liquor stores (48) Locksmith shops (49) Hail order businesses (50} Hanufacturer's agent (51) Harket, food. wholesale or jobber {52} Hassage parlors, turkish baths, health centers and similar personal service establ i sh~ents (53} Heat markets, not including slaughtering (54) Himeographing and addressograph services {55) Hobilehomes, provided they are kept mobile and licensed pursuant to state law, use for: a. Construction offices and caretaker's quarters on construction sites for the duration of a valid building permit, providing they are i nconspi cuousl y 1 ocated b. Agricultural worker e~ploym, ent offices for a maximum of 90 days in any calendar year c. Caretakers or watchhen and their families provided no rent is paid. where a permitted and existing c~nercial use is established. Not more than one mobileh~ne shall be allowed for a parcel of land or a shopping center complex (56) Husic Stores {57) News stores (58} Notions or novelty stores {59} Nurseries and garden supply stores (60) Offices, business (61) One on-site operator's residence. which may be located in a co,.,,erci al bull ding. (62} Paint and wall paper stores, not including paint contractors (63} Parking lots and parking structures (64) Pawn shops (65) Pet shops and pet supply shops P1 umbi ng shops. not 1 ncl udi ng pl umbt ng contractors (6B) Poultry markets, not including slaughtering or live sales (69) Printers or publishers (TO} Produce markets (71) Radio and television broadcasting studios 74 (98) (99) (ioo) (ioi) (72) Recording sl~dios (73) Refresl~ent stands (74) Restaurants and other eattng est.hltsh~ents (75) Schools, business and professional, tnclu ding art, barber, beauty, dance dr~na, music and swimming (76) Shoe stores and repair shops shoeshine stan", Signs, on-site advertising 79) Sporting goods stores 80) Stained glass assmbly 81) Stationery stores 82) Stations, bus, railroad and taxi 83) Taxtdermist 84) Tailor shops (85) Telephone exchanges l II Theaters. ,or t,cl,di,g drtv,-t,s Tobacco shops (88) Tourist infomation centers (89) Toy shops (90) Travel agencies (gl) Typewriter sales and rental and incidental repairs watch repairshops Wedding chapels (94) Wholesale businesses with samp)es on the prenises, but not to include storage (95) Recycling collection facilities. (96) (Delete) (97) Gasoline service stations, not including the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-pr~ni see conswnpti on. Golf cart sales and service Hotels, resort hotels and motels Day care centers Convenience stores, not including the sale of motor vehicle fuel. Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Permit. The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.2B of this ordinance: Automobile repair garages, body shops, spray painting shops Automobile sales and rental agencies Boat sales, rentals and services (4) Car washes Equtpment rental servtces, t ncl u ding rotott 11 ers, power mowers, sanders, power saws, canant and plaster mixers not exceeding 20 cubic feet in capacity and other similar equipment. {7) Hellports (8} Ltqutd petrole~n service stations, with Or without the concurrent sale of beer and wine, provided the total capacity of all tanks shall not exceed 10,000 gallons (9) Mortuaries 75 {10} Sale, rental, re;air, or denonstration of motorcycles, scooters or motorbikes of two horsepower or greater {11} Animal hospitals (12) Sports and recreational facilities, not including motor-driven vehicles and riding acadanies, but including archery ranges, athletic fields, beaches, golf driving ranges, gJa~nasiums, miniature golf, parks, playgrounds, sports arenas, skating rinks, s tadi urns, and cb,w,,erci al swtmmtng pool s (13) Tire recapping {14) Tire sales and services, not including recapping (15} Trailer and boat storage (16) Travel trailers, mobileha~es and recreational vehicles sales and service (17} Truck sales and services (18} Trucks and trailers; the rental of trucks not over 19,500 pounds gross weight, with body not to exceed 22 feet in length fr;n the back of the cab to the end of the body; and the rental of trailers not exceeding 6 feet in width or 22 feet in length (19) Underground bulk fuel storage (20} (Deleted} {21} All uses permitted in subsection (a} that have more than 200 square feet of outside storage of display of materials (22} Gasoline service stations, with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-prenises cons~ption. {23) Convenience stores, including the sale of motor vehicle fuel. Accessory Uses Permitted. An accessory use to a permitted use is allowed, provided the accessory use is established on the s~ne lot or parcel of land, and is incidental to, and consistent with the character of the permitted principal use, including but not limited to: {1} Limited manufacturing, fabricating, processing, packaging, treating and incidental storage related thereto, provided any such activity shall be in the sane line of merchandise or service as the trade or service business conducted on the pranises and providing any such related activity does not exceed any of the following restrictions: a. The maximum gross floor area of the building permitted to be devoted to such accessory use shall be 25 percent. b. The maximum total horsepower of all electric motors used in connection with such accessory use shall be 5 horsepower. c. The accessory use shall be so conducted that noise, vibration, dust, odor, and all other objectionable factors shall be reduced to the extent that there will be no annoyance to persons outside the premises. Such accessory use shall be located not nearer than 50 feet to any resi denti al zone· d. Accessory uses shall be conducted wholly within a c~pletely enclosed bull ding. d. Any use that is not specifically listed in Subsections a. and b. may be considered a permitted or conditionally permitted use provided that the ATTACHMENT NO, 4 EXHIBITS CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA94-0071, SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 226 EXHIBIT- A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 7, 1994 R:\STAFFRPTXTIPA°A.PC 10/31/94 lab CITY OF TEMECULA VL EXHIBIT B o ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - C-P-S SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL · ~4 -s EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - N-C NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CASE NO. - PA94-0071 ,SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 226 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 7, 1994 R:\STAFFRPTX?IPA94.FC 10/31/94 Idb CITY OF TEMECULA MARGARITA ROAD LEGEND gz.,~a,yneo.~,,~,l~Tr~' PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES 1'=30' CASE NO. - PA94-0071, SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 226 EXHIBIT- D SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 7, 1994 R:\STAFFRPTX?lPA94.PC 10/31/94 klb ITEM NO. 7 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning~'~' November 7, 1994 School Mitigation Program Resolution Prepared By: David W. Hogan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department staff recommends the Planning Commission Adopt a resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SCHOOL MITIGATION PROGRAM" BACKGROUND During development of the City General Plan, the Temecula Valley Unified School District requested that the City of Temecula require residential developers tc fully mitigate the impac of new development on school facilities. In response to their request, the City Council included language in the Growth Management and Public Facilitie,. Element stating that i~ Proposition 170 failed to win voter approval in the November 1993 Election, the City would establish a school mitigation resolution, The Resolution attached to this Agenda Report is the enabling legislation that authorizes the School District to submit a Mitigation Plan to the City. It is expected that the District wih submit their proposed mitigation plan for City review and approval within a few months. A copy of the proposed School Mitigation Resolution is included in Attachment No. 1. DISCUSSION Representatives of the City and the Temecula Valley Unified School District have been working together since December 1993 to develop the attached resolution. The school facility mitigation program established by the proposed resolution will accomplish the following: Authorize the School District to prepare and submit a Mitigation Plan that addresses the impacts on school facilities; 2. Set standards for the contents of Mitigation Plans; 3. Establish a procedure for the Council's review and approval of a proposed Mitigation Plan; and, Establish procedures on how the approved Mitigation Plan will be implemented by the City. The proposed program was provided to, and reviewed by, the Temecula-Murrieta Coordinating Committee at their August 19, 1994 and September 2, 1994 meetings. The Coordinating Committee had no comments on the proposed Program. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The proposed resolution would establish the school facility impact mitigation program outlined in Implementation Measure C.3 of the Growth Management and Public Facilities Element. As a result, adoption of the proposed program is consistent with the aoopted City General Plan. A copy of the school facility related General Plan Implementation Measures are included in Attachment No. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The proposed resolution does not have the potential to cause a significant and adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, the Director of Planning has determined that the project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: 1. PC Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 3 2. Growth Management/Public Facility Element Implementation Measure C.3 - Blue Page 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- R:~STAFFRPT~SCHOLMIT.PC 10/13/94 klb 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- "A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMM~.NDING APPROVAL OF TFrF. SCHOOL MITIGATION PROGRAM" WFW..REAS, rapid population growth in recent years in the City of Temecula ("City") has resulted in large increases in the numbers of students that the Temecula Valley Unified School District ("District") is required to educate, and has resulted in the need to enlarge. existing school facilities and construct new facilities to house the studeats in accordance with the policies of the District and standards specified by state law; and WI~.REAS, new student impacting existing school facihh~s are due primarily t,, residential uses (except senior citizen development); and WHEREAS, impacts from commercial and industrial development are less significant than those of residential development and are partially offset by the contributions of commercia' and industrial uses toward a strong tax base in the City which support public services, includin:~ schools; and WtIF. REAS, adequate school facilities are a benefit to both new development and the community at large, and are necessary component of the City's social and infrastructure systems; and WHEREAS, the State Legislature has declared that fmancing the construction of school facilities is the responsibility of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the State of California has been unable to adequately fulfill its obligation for funding such additional school facilities and has shifted the primary responsibility for fmancing of school facilities to local school districts, which, under Chapter 887, Statutes 1986. ("School Facilities Law of 1986"), may establish developer mitiga;~on fees for residential. commercial and industrial uses. and may establish Mello-Roos Con~c~unity Facilities District-: to provide for school plant facilities fmancing as authorized and limited by the laws of the State of California; and WHF~REAS, the combination of state school bond monies. school district imposed developer fees, local school bond measures, and other sources of f'mancing have generally been inadequate to provide for the enlargement and construction of school plant facilities sufficient to adequately house new students in accordance with the minimum .~tandards set forth by the State of California; and WFIF. REAS, school funding sources under current state laws and available funding are oriented toward the provision of interim school facilities, and a need exists to fund permanem K-12 school facilities, including facilities for the special education needs of special or disadvantage students; and WHEREAS, the City, pursuant to the California Environment:d Quality Act CCEQA"), has the authority to review development proposals for impacts on School Facilities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to decisions reached in Mira Developm._:nt Corporation v. City o_f San Diego, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1201 (1988), William S., Hart High School District v. Regional Planning Commission, 226 Cat. App. 3d 1612 (1991), and Murrie_a Valley Unified Schoo'._ District v. County of Riverside, 228 Cat. App. 3d 1212 (1991) interpreting the School Facilities Law of 1986, the City has the authority to condition legislative acts including general plan amendments, specific plans and amendments thereto, and changes o,/zone, if it fmds that th~ impacts on school facilities have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance; and VV'HEREAS, the provision of a quality school system to educate the residents of the Cit> of Temecula is important to the City's future; and W'~'F. REAS, the Temecula Valley Unified School District requested that the City of Temecula adopt a resolution providing creating a program to provide full funding for schoo! facilities from some types of development; and WHEREAS, the City Council included language in the Grow~i Management and Public Facility Element of General Plan concerning the mitigation of school facility impacts; and W}IF. REAS, this Resolution is being adopted at the reques.: of the District which has agreed to indemnify and hold harmless the City from claims resv:iing from the adoption enfomement, or implementation of the Resolution; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed resolution was posted at C .ty Hall, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce. NOW, THEREFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER THAT THE PROPOSED SCHOOL MITIGATION PROGRAM IS CONSISTENT WITH THF, ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN AND RECONIMENDS THAT Tit'F. CITY COLINCH, ADOPT TttF. FOLLOWING PROGRAM: Section 1. Mitigation of School Facility Impacts A. Except as pwvided below, all development projects and applications that are submitted to the City of Temecula and that require a General Plan amendment, zone change, development agreement, pre-annexation agreement or Specific Plan approval or amendment shall be reviewed for their potential school facility impacts and mitigation of such impacts. B. No conditions of approval on General Plan amendment,, one change, developmen: agreement, pre-annexation agreement or Specific Plan approval or mnendment shall require any applicant or developer to provide mitigation in excess of the amounts a.:thorized by Governmere Code Section 65995 unless a School District Mitigation Plan ("Mitigation Plan") has been prepared by or on behalf of the District and approved by the City Council. R:\STAFFRFI?\SCHOLMIT.FC 10/13/94 klb 5 C. Any of the following shall be considered to be adequate mitigation of schooi facility impacts associated with approvals by the City for General Plan amendments, Specific Plans and Specific Plan Amendments, development agreements, pre-annexation agreements and zone changes: 1. A legally enforceable School Facility Impact Mitigation Agreement ("Mitigation Agreement") between the District and developer that specifies the exact nature. amount, process and conditions of mitigation to be provided by the applicant/developer or other appropriate documentation. 2. A fmding pursuant to CEQA by the appropriate City review body that no significant impacts on school facilities will occur as a result of the pr '~posed development. Section 2. School Facility Impact Mitigation Plans A. Any school district located partly or totally within tile City may prepare and submit a School Facility Impact Mitigation Plan to the City to address the impacts on school facilities which may result from new residential development projects, within that district. The City shall review and consider approving a proposed Mitigation Pl';n ff the Plan adequately addresses the impacts resulting from increases in the number of students within the school district submitting the Mitigation Plan. B. The following development projects shall be exempt from the requirements of an approved Mitigation Plan. These projects shall be required to pay only the statutory school fees or any other amount previously agreed to by the District and the 3wner/developer of the proposed development project: 1. Residential projects which have been approved by a hearing body (Planning Commission or City Council) prior to the effective date of this Resolation. 2. "Quasi-judicial" land use approvals, including but not limited to subdivision maps, use permits, plot plans and variances. 3. Subsequent approvals for the components of a larger project which has already met the requirements of this Resolution (e.g. a tentative tract map within a specific plan which has already mitigated school facility impacts). 4. Commercial or industrial projects. 5. Senior citizen housing as deemed in Government Code Section 65995.1 (a). 6. Any residential development proposal for which an Impact Mitigation Agreement has already been executed between the developer and the District. 7. Any or all changes of zone needed to make the Official City Zoning Map consistent with the Land Use Designations contained in the City' s firs't adopted General Plan as required by Section 65860 of State Planning and Zoning Law. 8. Any amendments to an approved specific pla;, or tract map that changes only the layout of the project, make minor changes to design and dt;velopment standards, o,' make other administrative changes and does not increase the total number of residential housing units in the project. Section 3. Preparation of School Facility Impact Mitigation Plans A. The Mitigation Plan shall contain documentation of tile need for any level of mitigation that exceeds the total of revenue anticipated to be received by the school frow Statutory School Fees and any other sources of funding available to or anticipated by the District. The Mitigation Plan shall be adopted by the District Board of Trustees. At a minimum, all Mitigation Plans shall contain the following information: 1. Student Generation Factors. a. The District Student Generation Factor (SGF) shall be based upo~ a household survey. The SGF shall include peak student loading for aP elementary, middle and high school grades. The SGF Household Survey shall be based upon and consist of the following: (1) A minimum random sample of 250 dwelling units that were constructed in the preceding three years. (2) A representative sample of the current or anticipated future characteristics of the community, including consideration for any resort or second home characteristics of the community. (3) The survey shall exclude senior citizen housing. (4) A representative sample of the housing product types within the district (i.e. single family detached, single family attached, or multi-family rental properties and mobile homes). (5) The SGF shall be based on an assessment of student "pass through" from new homes over at least a five-year period. c. The District may propose additional sun ey factors and conditions to be included in the survey. The use of any additional survey factors and condition (that could affect the SGF) must be approved by the City' s Director of Planning :'rior to doing the survey 2. Typical School Land Cost Factors a. The Typical School Land Costs Factor (TSF) shall be based on the State' s standard cost and shall be based upon a finished and improved, construction ready schoo~ site, including the extension of necessary infrastructure. b. Development of school sites shall be based on California Department of Education standards for infrastructure, location, and acreage. c. School construction costs shall be as authorized by the State Office of Local Assistance (OLA), or as required by local and state codes. d. All costs for plans, test, inspections, funuture and equipment, and contingencies shall be in accordance with OLA requirements. 3. Optimum Facility Utilization This District shall demonstrate, in the ~litigation Plan, optimun~ utiliTation of its facilities. b. The Mitigation Plan shall include consideration of a year-round, multi-track education program, double school sessions, and alternative student loading programs. 4. Bond Issues and Other Funding Sources a. The District shall certify, and provide supporting evidence in the Mitigation Plan that the District has used, or committed for use, all its available funding sources. b. The District shall certify, and provide sugporting evidence in the Mitigation Plan that the District is pursuing state and alternate facilities financing. c. If the District is not pursuing, or does not anticipate pursuing alternate financing, it shall include an explanation and rationale in the Mitigation Plan for doing so. d. The Mitigation Plan shall include consxderations of methods of financing the payment for and construction of School Facilities, tc ensure the provision o( adequate facilities and to minimize actual costs to future residents, inch tding the use of developer loan funds based on anticipated state bond fund reimbursement and corn ;nunity facilities districts. 5. Central Administration and Support Facilities and Interim Facilities The District shall have the opportunity, through the Mitigation Plan, to present an argument justifying mitigation for impacts on administration and support facilities and interim facilities. The justification shall include information on staffing, work loads, and other data to demonstrate that the District is using its administrative funding in a manner which maximizes productivity and minimizes costs. In addition, ff the District elects to present this justification, the Mitigation Plan shall demonstrate that the mitigation requested is proportional to the impacts directly attributable to new development. 6. Level of Support From New Development The Mitigation Plan may provide for total m!tigation school facilitie,. impacts that are shown to result from new residential developments l:rom all potential funding sources. The Mitigation Plan shall not be used to provide for mitigation of impacts attributable to existing development. 7. Coordination of Planning Review for School Site Development. The Mitigation Plan shall include provisions for consultations between the District and the City on school facility location and site development plans, in order to promote compatibility with City land use, circulation, and other plans, and coordination on public improvements, including streets, sidewalks, and traffic control mech~.dsms. B. The District shall submit its adopted Mitigation Plan to me City for its review and approval as to whether it conforms to these requirements and could reasonably mitigate the additional impacts on the District school facilities. Upon submittal of the Mitigation Plan to the. City the following procedures shall be followed: 1. The District shall submit the adopted Mitigatic~', Plan to the Director Planning. The submittal shall be accompanied by fee to cover the '~:i )'s cost of reviewing the District's Plan. 2. Within 30 days following receipt of the District 's Mitigation Plan, the Director of Planning shall review the plan to determine whether it com:orms to the requirement: of this Section. After reviewing the Mitigation Plan, the Director shall take one of the followin:.: actions: a. Notify, by written notice to the superintendent of the District, that the Mitigation Plan conforms to the requirements of this Resolution. The notice shall also contain the anticipated meeting date for the Planning Commission's consideration of the Mitigation Plan. b. Notify, in writing, the superintendent ~f the District that the District's Mitigation Plan does not conform to the requirements of thi, Section and describing the deficiencies that need to be corrected. Any major changes in the District's Mitigation Plan must be approved by the District' s Board of Trustees. 3. Within 60 days following the Director of Plam~g's notification of the completeness of the District's Mitigation Plan, the Planning Corihtlssion shall review and consider the plan to determine whether it conforms to the requirem~n~.~ of this Section and will reasonably mitigate the impacts of new development on school facilid ~s. After considering the Mitigation Plan, the Commission shall recommend that the City Council approve, deny, condition, or continue the approval of the District' s Mitigation Plan. 4. Within 30 days following the Planning Commission's recommendation o~; the District's Mitigation Plan, the City Council shall review and consider the Plan to determine whether it conforms to the requirements of this Section, and will reasonably mitigate the impacts of new development on school facilities. After considering the Mitigation Plan, the Council shah approve, deny, condition, modify, or continue consideration of the District's Mitigation Plan. C. Upon approval of the City Council, the Mitigation Plan shall thereafter be regarded as the basis for the identification by the District of specific impacts attributable te individual residential development proposals, and mitigation measures which may be appropriate to eliminate or reduce to a level of insignificance the impacts attributable to such residential development proposals. The City shall not adopt any financial miqgation in excess of the District imposed development mitigation measure, unless it is found to be consistent with th. provisions of a previously approved Mitigation Plan, an executed developer-District agreement, or any measures permitted by State law. D. The District may request, at any time, that the City amend a previously approved Mitigation Plan. Any amendments to the Plan shall follow the approval procedures specifiea in this Resolution. Section 4. Review of Residential Projects A. For all residential projects, the Director of Planning shall notify the District, by means of written notice, as to any proposed development located withh3 said District prior to th~ first Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting and prior to pr:~paration of the Initiai Envixoamental Study. 1. The Notice to the District shall include the fotk;~,ing information: a. The location of the project; b. The name of the owner and developer; c. The number and type of dwelling units proposed; d. A preliminary site or development plan; and, e. The date of the DRC meeting. 2. The District shall provide written comments on any project submitted for theix review and comment prior to the date of the DRC meeting. 3. The failure of the District to provide a written response to the Director of Planning shall constitute the equivalent of "No Comment." In this case, the City will require only the State mandated school impact mitigation fees. B. All residential development proposals that do not ~equire a General Plan amendment, zone change, development agreement, pre-annexation ag,v. ement, or Specific Plan approval or amendment by the City shall be reviewed for their .tx~tential impact on school facilities as part of the Initial Environmental Study process. Nothin~ in this resolution restricts R:\STAFFRPT\SCIAOLMIT.K 10/13/94 lab l0 the ability of the Director of Planning to determine that an otherwise 'xempt residential projec' may have a significant impact on the environment and that an Envixonmental Impact Repon should be prepared. No mitigation of school impacts beyond the mitigation identified in State law will be required for these projects. C. All residential development proposals that require General Plan amendments, Specific Plans, Specific Plan amendments, development agreements, pre-armexation agreements, and changes of zone shall be reviewed for their potential impact on school facilities and the environment and the mitigation of those impacts in accordance with the requirements of State and Local law. 1. If a School Facility Impact Mitigation Agreement is required and an Agreement has not been submitted, the Director of Planning shall no,fly the applicant that the application is incomplete and that additional information (i.e. specia2. study or environmental impact report) is required to assess the impacts on and mitigatit~n of the effects of the' development project on the District's school facilities. 2. Within 30 days of the submitting an application the Director of Plarminl shall notify the applicant that either: a. The proposed development project wiL not have a significant adverse impact on the District's school facilities or the environment, and that no additional special studies or supplemental mitigation agreement is required. b. The proposed development project wili not have a significani adverse impact on the DistrictYs school facilities, but may have an adverse impact on the environment and that a special study or environmental impact report is required. c. The proposed development project could have an adverse impact on the Distdct's school facilities and that a detailed impact assessment and mitigation study must be prepared and/or a School Facility Impact Mitigation Agreement must be obtained. d. The proposed development project cou'.d have an adverse impact on the District's school facilities and/or the environment, and that a special study or an environmental impact report must be prepared and/or an Impact ;Vlitigation Agreement is required. e. The proposed development project will i :,ve an adverse impact the District' s school facilities and the environment and that a specia~ study or an environmental impact report must be prepared. 3. If the applicant and/or developer disagre2,s with the Director's determination of the project's potential impact on the environment or the District's school facilities, they may appeal the decision to within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Director'a determination. The appeal shall be made and fried in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Commission. R:~STAFFRPTXSCHOLM1T.PC 10/13/94 klb 11 4. Within 30 days of filing an appeal of the Director's decision, the Directo~ of Planning shall schedule the appeal for the Planning Commissionh ;onsideration. 5. If the applicant, developer, or District disagrees with the Planning Commission' s determination of the project' s potential impact on the environment or the District' s school facilities, they may appeal the decision to within 10 calendar days of receipt of the Commission's determination. The appeal shall be made and fried in accordance with requirements of the City Clerk. 6. Within 30 days of filing an appeal of the Plato:rag Commission's actio~ the City Clerk shall schedule the appeal for the City Council 's consideration. The City Council' s decisions on these matters shall be final. D. Evidence of adequate mitigation of any significant adverse impacts on the District's school facilities shall be established by a Mitigation Agreement. The terms of the Mitigation Agreement, shall be incorporated by reference in the conditions of CEQA Approval, and on the Conditions of Approval of any Specific Plan, the Resolution of Approval of any General Plan Amendment, and in the terms of any development or pre-annexation agreement Section 5. Implementation of this Resolution A. Nothing in this Resolution shall be interpreted as limitinF or restricting the ability of the Director of Planning, Planning Commission, or Council to requL'e additional informatiox, or special studies on any residential projects submitted to the City fo' approval. B. It is the intent of the Council that this Resolution be :.n force and effect until amended, rescinded, suspended, superseded or until a subsequent; solution or ordinance i, enacted which supersedes this Resolution. C. This Resolution is adopted at the behest of and for the benefit of the Temecula Valley Unified School District and other school districts within the limits of the City of Temecula. It is agreed that should any claim, action, challenge, or similar proceeding be instituted against the City for the adoption, imposition, or calculatio:t of the school mitigation requirements under the provisions of this Resolution, that City and District agree to share the responsibility and financial obligations of that proceeding as set forth below: 1. District agrees that any claim, action, proceeding. etc., brought against the City which challenges the method of calculation of impact on school tacilities in excess of tha: statutorily mandated shall be the full and complete responsibility of the District. To that end, the District shall indemrdfy, protect, defend, and hold harmless the City against any loss, cost, expense, claim, damage, settlement, or judgment, resulting from a lawsuit or any part thereof, pertaining to the amount or method of calculation of such impact. 2. The City and District agree to share the cost on 50-50 basis of any action, challenge, claim, demand, or other legal proceeding brought against the City based upon the authority of the City to impose school mitigation in excess of that res:'uired by State law. R:\STAFF]L~TXSCHOLMrf. PC 10/13/94 lab 12 Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this __ day of ,1994. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I IqfEREBY 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 , 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THO1LNHIIL SECRETARY A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 2 PUBLIC FACILITY ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES R:\STAFFRPT~SCHOLM1T.PC 10/13/94 klb 14 CITY OF TEMECUI.A Growth Management/Public Facilities Element V. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS C. School Facilities Request the School District to pwvide the City with information concerning potential impacts associated with proposed residential development. The in.formation should include a status report of the available school facilities to serve prbposed projects. To the extent that adequate school facilities are not available on a timely basis, the City will seek to assist the Disu'ict and developera in arriving at a solution to pwvide adequate school facilities, as permitted by law. Coordinate with developers and the School District to ensure that school sites are adequately sized and located to meet inmes in demand. Require proposed pwjects with school si~ to include a phasing plan that linlm project development with the provision of a school facility when needed. Since S.B. 1287 plac~ substantial constraints on the City in thk ax-,.a, the City will enter into a continuing dialogue among interested parties to create an implementation program that is in compliance with state law and racers th= needs of the School District and the City's needs for adequate and affordable housing and economic development. Should S.B. 1287 be repealed as a result of rejection of Proposition 170 on the state;wide ballot November 2, 1993, the City Council shall establish a school mitigation resolution which specifies the pmcedttres to be followed by the City, School District, and developers in order to determine school facilities impact associated with residential development, available sources of funding for school facilities necessitated by such development and the appropriate mitigation measures. The resolution would provide for pwcedures consistent with those under County Resolution 93-131, which apply to the County portion of the Tcmccula Valley Unified School District, as permitted by law. ITEM NO. 8 RECOMMENDATION: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 7, 1994 Planning Application No. 94-0081 (Plot Plan) Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA94-008; and APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: APPROVE the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA94- 0081; and ADOPT Resolution No. 94- approving PA94-0081, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached conditions of approval. The Allen Group The Allen Group To construct a 25,556 square foot Federal Express Distribution Facility Northeast corner of Jefferson and Sanborn Avenues Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: North: South: East: Wast: Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) Not Requested Service Commercial (SC) Vacarlt R:\STAFFRPT',81PA94.FC 10/'25/94 lifo 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Vacant West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: 2.18 acres Total Site Area: 88,090 square feet Building Area: 25,556 square feet Landscape Area: 21,134 square feet Paved Area: 41,400 square feet Parking Required: 62 spaces Parking Provided: 63 spaces Standard: 61 spaces Handicap: 2 spaces Building Height: 24'0" Project Density - Floor Area Ratio: .32 BACKGROUND Planning Application No. PA94-0081 was formally submitted to the Planning Department on August 18, 1994. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on September 8, 1994. Planning Application No, PA94-0081 was deemed complete on October 13, 1994. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a proposal to construct a 25,556 square foot Federal Express Distribution Facility. Office area will comprise approximately 3,556 square feet, with the remainder of the site committed to sorting area and storage. All delivery vans/vehicles will be stored inside. Proposed hours of operation are between 7:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday. As proposed, the project will traverse several lot lines. To remedy this situation, both a parcel merger and a lot line adjustment will be required as conditions of approval. ANALYSIS LandscaDina The parkways are already landscaped at the project site. The applicant proposes to retain most of the existing landscaping. The City's Landscape Architect has reviewed the conceptual landscape plan for consistency with Ordinance No. 348 (Land Use and Development) and Ordinance No. 457 (Grading). The project has been determined to be consistent with all Ordinances. Preliminary comments from the City's Landscape Architect were furnished to the applicant and have been incorporated into the plan. Upon submittal of construction drawings for the landscaping and irrigation, the City's Landscape Architect will review the project for consistency with Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance). R:x, STAFFRFBSIPA94.PC 10/25/94 Itdb 2 Parkinq/On-Site Circulation The applicant has submitted a parking needs analysis for the project. Based upon this analysis, sixty-two (62) parking spaces are required under Ordinance No. 348 for this use. The project has a total of sixty-three (63) parking spaces. Access to the project will be from both Jefferson and Sanborn Avenues. Staff has reviewed on-site circulation and has determined that it meets City standards in terms of widths of drive lanes and accessibility for emergency vehicles. Architecture The building will be constructed of tilt-up concrete and will be painted. The base color of the building will be tan. A dark brown horizontal stripe will traverse the building, with a rust color being used for the horizontal score lines. The west elevation presents a front to the street which includes tempered bronze glass with dark bronze aluminum frames. The south elevation includes one painted, metal roll up door. The east (rear) elevation contains three painted, metal roll up doors, as well as a canopy that will cover the van wash area. The canopy will be of compatible colors with the rest of the building. The north elevation has four metal roll up doors - two for entering the building and two for loading. The canopy continues from the rear portion of the building to cover the two loading areas. Area Compatibility There are no existing buildings immediately adjacent to proposed project. Existing buildings within the vicinity are similar in scale. It is likely that future buildings in immediate proximity to this project will be compatible in terms of floor area ratio. This will be ensured because General Plan Land Use Designations east of Jefferson Avenue are SC (Service Commercial) and Land Use Designations west of Jefferson Avenue are BP (Business Park). Traffic The applicant has submitted a letter from San Dieguito Engineering, Inc. dated September 26, 1994 that discusses traffic impacts from the project on Jefferson Avenue. According to the letter, the facility will operate 30 vans at buildout. The analysis states that a.m. peak will be 26 vans. There will be no impact at p.m. peak because the vans will return to the site at staggered intervals throughout the afternoon. The letter further states that peak hour volume on Jefferson Avenue is 1109 vehicles. A focused traffic analysis is not required if impacts will be less than five (5) percent. The letter summarizes that the project would have an impact of less than five percent; therefore, a traffic analysis would not be required. Staff agrees with this assessment. Mitioation MOnitorinQ ProOram Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a mitigation monitoring program (MMP) was prepared for this project. The MMP is presented in a table format and is included as Attachment No. 5. The MMP identifies general impacts from the project, mitigation measures, specific mitigation monitoring processes, mitigation milestones, responsible monitoring parties, and prerequisite actions. Areas that require mitigation monitoring include: earth, air, water, animal life, noise, light and glare, natural resources, transportation/circulation and public services. R:\STAFFRPT~81PA94.PC 10/25194 klb 3 ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Existing zoning for the site is M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial). Warehouse/ distribution with office facilities are permitted within the M-SC zone with the approval of a plot plan pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance No. 348. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is SC (Service Commercial). According to the Draft Development Code, warehouse/distribution with office facilities would be permitted in the zone by right. Until the new 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; therefore Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Negative Declaration for the project. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The proposed project is consistent with all City ordinance requirements. It is likely that future buildings in immediate proximity to this project will be compatible in terms of floor area ratio. Traffic generated by the project will be insignificant. A mitigation monitoring program (MMP) was prepared for this project. Areas that require mitigation monitoring include: earth, air, water, animal life, noise, light and glare, natural resources, transportation/circulation and public services. The project as proposed is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and the General Plan. The Initial Study 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. FINDINGS The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The project is a permitted use within the General Plan Land Use designation of Service Commercial (SC). In addition, the project is permitted under the existing Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) zoning. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The 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 18.30 (Plot Plan) of Ordinance No. 348. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. An Initial Study was prepared and circulated for this project. The Initial Study indicated that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, the significant effects would be mitigated to a level less than significant. This is accomplished through project design and mitigation measures contained 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 (Plot Plan), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses, The project is located in an area of existing and proposed light industrial/commercial development. Approval of this Plot Plan will have a di minimis impact on fish and wildlife resources. The project involves no potential adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. 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 publicly maintained roads (Jefferson Avenue and Sanborn Avenue). 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. 10. 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 6 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 Initial Study - Blue Page 21 Exhibits - Blue Page 38 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Designation D. Site Plan E. Elevations Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 39 R:\STAFFRPTXS1pA94.PC 10/25/94 klb 5 ATTACHMENT N0.1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94° R:'xSTAFFRFI~81PA94.PC 10/25/94 Idb 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0081 TO CONSTRUCT A 25,556 SQUARE FOOT DISTRIBUTION FACILITY ON THREE PARCELS CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF JEFFERSON AND SANBORN AVENUES AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 910-200-023, 910-200-024 & 910-200-025 WHEREAS, The Allen Group filed Hanning Application No. 94-0081 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, Planning Application No. 94-0081 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. 94-0081 on November 7, 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 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. 94-0081; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETER_MINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findin~,s. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. 94-0081 makes the following specific findings, to wit: A. As conditioned pursuant to Attachment No. 2, Planning Application No. 94-0081, as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. B. The Planning Commission in approving the certification of the Negative Declaration of environmental impact under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, specifically finds that the approval of this Plot Plan will have a di minimis impact on fish and wildlife resources. The Planning Commission specifically finds that in considering R:\STAFFRPT~81PA94.PC 10/24/94 klb 7 the record as a whole, the project involves no potential adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. This is because that this project will be located in an area that has previously been disturbed and has not historically contained any sensitive habitat. The project includes the construction of a 25,556 square foot building to be used for an FedEx distribution center and that all of the same are located in the County of Riverside. Furthermore, the Planning Commission finds that an initial study has been prepared by the City Staff and considered by the Planning Commission which has been the basis to evaluate the potential for adverse impact on the environment and forms the basis for the Planning Commission's determination, including the information contained in the public heating records, on which a Negative Declaration of environmental impact was issued and this di minimis finding is made. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources, or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. Finally, the Planning Commission finds that the City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5(d). 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 Planning Application No. 94-0081 to construct a 25,556 square foot distribution facility on three parcels containing approximately 2.2 acres, located on the northeast comer of Jefferson and Sanborn Avenues and known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 910-200-023, 910-200-024 & 910-200-025 subject to the following: A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. R:\STAFFRP'BSIPA94.PC 10/24/9~ klb 8 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of November, 1994. STEVEN J. 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 7th day of November, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNHILL SECRETARY R:~STAFFRFI~81PA94.PC 10/24/94 kib 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFR/'~glPA94.FC 10/24/94 klb 10 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 94-0081, Plot Plan Project Description: To construct a 25,556 Square foot Federal Express Distribution Facility Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-200-023, 910-200-024 & 910-200-025 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 The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA94-0081 is for a 25,556 square foot Federal Express Distribution Facility. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its officers, employees, and agents from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its officers, employees, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body including the actions of such City's voters concerning Planning Application No. 94-0081. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. R:\STAFFRPT~81PA94.PC 10/'24/94 Idb 11 5. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D approved with Planning Application No. 94-0081, or as amended by these conditions. A. A minimum of sixty-three (63) parking spaces shall be provided. B. A minimum of two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. C. Three (3) Class I1 bicycle spaces shall be provided. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit F, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Material Colors Tilt-up precast concrete Glass (Windows) Aluminum (Window Frames) Tan, Rust, Brown Bronze Dark Bronze Landscape plans shall conform substantially with Exhibit G and the approved site plan, Exhibit D. The developer or his successor's interest shall submit a letter describing how compliance with the required mitigation measures set forth in the projects mitigation monitoring program will be met. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 10. 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. 11. 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 12. The applicant shall record a Lot Line Adjustment for the northeast property line of the subject site. 13. The applicant shall record a Certificate of Parcel Merger for the project. R:~STAFFRIrP,81PA94.PC 10/24/94 klb 12 14. Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading 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. 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 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. 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. 20. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed refiectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone 21. 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 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. R:\STAFFRPTXSIPA94.PC 10/'24/94 klb 13 22. 23. 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, BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 24. 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 Disabled access regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 25. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 26. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review, 27. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. 28. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems. 29. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 30. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 31. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 32. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 33. Disabled parking shall be located so that it is not necessary to pass behind parked vehicles other than disabled persons own vehicle. 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. R:\STA~81PA94.PC 10/24/94 klb 14 General Requirements 34. A Grading Permit for 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. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing contiguous to the site. plans shall be improvements 37. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 38. 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. 39. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: State Water Resources Control Board San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company 40. A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of Approval. 41. A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 42. 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. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in e 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. 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. A Flood Plain Development Permit that adheres to Section 5.1 .c.3, at a minimum, of City Ordinance No. 91-12 shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works. 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. 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. 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. R:\STAFFILuq~SIPA94.PC 10/24/~4 Idb 16 53. The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be verified. Any upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required, shall be provided as part of development of this project. 54. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works: A. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. B. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Nos. 207A and 401 (curb and sidewalk). C. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. D. All driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. E. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 55. 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. A. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: A.C, pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, and drive approaches B. Storm drain facilities C. Landscaping (slopes and parkways) D. Erosion control and slope protection Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits 56. All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 57. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works for the construction of the drive approach and any other improvements to be constructed within the public Right-of-Way. R:~TAFFRPTXSIPA94.FC 10/24/94 Idb 17 Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 58. 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 Fire Department Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 59. All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been submitted/accom plished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 60. 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. 61. The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre/unit as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 62. 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. 63. 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 $2.00 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; provided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. R:\STAFFILF'BglPAoA,PC 10/24/94 klb 1 ~ 64. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed "Medians" for Jefferson Avenue in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to the Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 65. 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 Department of Public Works 66, 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, drive approaches, and street lights. 67. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. 68. 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. 69. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 70. The Developer shall vacate and dedicate the abutters rights of access along Jefferson Avenue pursuant to the new location of the driveway. 71. Adequate access, as determined by the Department of Public Works, to the adjacent parcel 3 shall be dedicated and the existing half-width driveway to Jefferson Avenue vacated. OTHER AGENCIES 72. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated August 24, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 73. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated September 12, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 74. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District's transmittal dated August 25, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District's transmittal dated August 25, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 76. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula Police Department's transmittal dated September 2, 1994, a copy of which is attached. R:'~STAFFRPT~81PA°,4.PC 10/24/94 kib 20 County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAl, HEAL'Ill DATE: August 24, 1994 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA 'PLANNING DEPT. ATI'N': Matthew CA1EC, OR I3ELLENBACH, Envimn~ntal Health S~ialist IV RE: PL~F PLAN NO. PA~g Department of Environmental ltealth has received nnd reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA94-0011 1 and has no objections. PRIOR TO BUII~)!N(; PI-4N ,4PPROV,4I,, the rollowing are required: 1. "P/'d!-,~'et, vt"iettersfromtheappropriatewaterandsewerlngdistri~ts. 2, If there are to he any hazardous materials, a clearanc~ letter fi:om the Department of Environmental Health tlazardou~ Materials Management Branch (358-5055) will be required indle, atin8 that tl~ project has been cleared for: CxD:dr (909) 275-8980 [Jndergrotmd storage tanks, Ordinance At 617.3 b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinnnee # 615.2 c. l-laz~'dous Waste OL,,clomtre On accordance with Ordinance At 65 i. I) d. Waste reduction management. ~' ~ CHIEHAR~FS RIVERSIDE C O UNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACI2q'rO AVENUE - PERIlIS, CALifORNIA 92570 · (909) 657-3183 September 12, 1994 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATI'EN: MATrI-IEV~ FAGAN RE: PA94-0081 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 recog"nized fire protection standards: The fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. A fire flow of 2500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. A combination of on-site and off-site super f~re hydrants (6"x4"x2-2 1/1"), will be located no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 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, co~tainirlg a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fkre flow. Once the plans axe 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. '1 RIVERSIDE OFFICE 3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 (909) 275-4777 * FAX (909I 369-7451 FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION PLANNING SECTION D INDIO OFFICE 79-733 Country Club Drive, Sue F, [ndio, CA 92201 (619) 863-8886 · FAX {619) 863-7072 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 fn'e protection measures. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE lVIET 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. Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Gates shall be equipped with knox locks. The applicant shall contact the Fire Department for specifications and a Knox application. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort. Install panic hard on exit doors per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building code. Exit signs and exit illumination shall be provided per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. Install portable lure extin~ouishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement. 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. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of f~re hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fn'e 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 Laura Cabral Fire Safety Specialist lhn August31,1994 REc& : VED Mr. Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT. Water Avaiiabiiiry APN 910-200-024 and 910-200-025 PA94-0081 (Plot Plan) Dear Mr. Fagan: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager $B:SO:chO9/F186 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician Redwine and Sherrill August 25, 1994 Chester C Gilbert Prey Wm G. Alctndge, Vice RECEIVED AUG 3 O 199 1 Matthew Fagan, Case Planner City, of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: DI , UT D PA 94-0081 (Federal Express Van Station) APN 910-200-024,025 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 van station, located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Jefferson and Sanborn Avenues. The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area. However, it must be understood the available service 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 stares 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) 766-1810, 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 Jadnto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hernet, CA Matthew Fagan PA 94-0081 August 25, 1994 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: 8-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer pipeline aligned along Jefferson Avenue, froruing the subject project. 8-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer pipeline aligned along Sanborn Avenue between Jefferson Avenue and Madison Avenue. Other Issues The proposed "van wash" area exceeds the District's maximum allowable area for accepting storm water runoff into the sanitary sewer system. This and other features of the proposed project must be reviewed, separately, by the District's source control inspectors. The representatives for the subject project must contact the District's Customer Service Department to arrange for source control plan check and field inspection of onsite plumbing. Feel free to contact Inspector Kirk Cloyd at (909) 766-1894 for additional information in this regard. Should you have any questions regarding these co~.mems, please feel free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, ext. 468. Very truly yours, EASTERN MUNICII~AL WATER DISTRICT David G. Crosley ~' Senior Engineer Customer Service Depamnent DGC/cz AB 94486 (wp-ntwk-pA940081 .clz) City of Temecula Temecula Police Department September 2, 1994 Conditions of Approval The Alien Group Federal Express The applicant must provide perimeter lighting around the entire exterior of the building, sufficient enough as to eliminate any dark area's and/or blind spots. The applicant must use low density/growth shrubbery, if any, around the perimeter of the building. It is further recommended that the applicant install a monitored security system of some type. If there are any questions or comments regarding these conditions, please feel free to contact me at the police station. Sincerely, Richard Sanchez ~ Police Officer Temecula Police Department (909) 696-3000 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL STUDY R:XSTAFFRPTXSIPAg~.PC 10/24/94 klb 21 City of Temecula .qanning Department Initial Environmental Study I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ,I. 1. Name of Project: 2. Case Numbers: 3. Location of Project: 4. Description of Project: 5. Date of Environmental Assessment: 6. Name of Proponent: 7. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Federal Express Planning Application No. 94-0081 Northeast corner of Jefferson and Sanborn Avenues Construction of a 25,556 square foot distribution facility. October 13, 1994 The Allen Group 1029 North Demaree Visalia, CA 93291 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 features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? 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? Yes Maybe N._.9_o _ _ x_~ X X _ _ x__ X X _ _ R:XSTAFFRPTXglPA94.PC 10F241~4 lab 22 Yes Maybe N._qo Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground failure, or similar hazards? X i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? X 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X X b. The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. X X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X R:\STAFFRlvI~81PA94.PC 10/24/94 klb 23 Yes Maybe b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants? __ __ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? __ __ d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? __ __ 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, shellfish, benthie organisms, and/or insects)? __ __ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of animals? __ __ c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __ __ d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? __ __ e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? __ __ 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? 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 b. Alteration to the f~ture planned land use of an area as described in a community or general plan? __ __ 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? X N_.Q .X X R:\STAFFRPT~81PA°A.PC 10/24/~1 klb 24 Yes Maybe N_.9_o 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)? __ __ X b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? __ __ X c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? _ _ __X 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? __ X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? __ __ X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? __ __ X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X __ c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? __ __ X__ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? __ __ X___ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X __ 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? __ __ __X b. Police protection? _ _ X__ c. Schools? _ __ X__ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ _ X__ R:\STAFFRPT~81PA94.PC 10/24/94 klb 25 e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 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 system? __ __ 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? __ __ 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? __ __ b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? __ __ c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? __ __ 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities? __ __ Yes Maybe X N._,,Q X R:\STAFFRPTX81PA94.FC 10/2~./9~ Idb 26 Yes Maybe N__o 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric. archaeological or historic site? X Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X R:~STAFFRPTXS1pA94.PC 10/'24/94 klb 27 H. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Earth 1.a. No. The proposal will not result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures. The site has been previously Faded and is fiat. Potential unstable earth conditions will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. The landscaping will serve as erosion control. Construction and grading for this development will not be at depths which would affect any geologic substructures. No impacts are foreseen as a result of this project. 1.b. Yes. The proposal will result in the disruption, displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the soil. All grading activity requires some form of disruption, displacement, compaction and/or overcovering of the soil. Impacts are not considered significant for two primary reasons First, the site has previously been graded. Second, the amount of disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soil for the realization of this project will be minimal. 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. Although the site has already been modified into its current configuration. additional grading will be necessary for the project. Since the amount of grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project, modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant. 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 or physical features exist on the site. 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 during the construction phase of the project. The project proposal will also result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, harriscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.g. No. The proposal will not result in modifications to any wash, channel, creek, river or lake. None exist on the project site, nor are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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. In addition, there is potential for ground failure and liquefaction in this area. Any potential impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Soil reports will be required as conditions of approval and will contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil. Information contained in the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report (certified November 9, 1993) states that the project will not expose people or property to geologic hazards such as landslides or mudslides. No known landslides are located on the site or proximate to the site. The same is true for mudslides. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. l.i. Air 2.a,b. 2.c. Water 3.a. 3.b. 3.c. 3.d. 3.e. No. The proposal does not include development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as identified by the State of California, Resource Agency Department of Conservation Special Studies Zone Map. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes. The project will result in air emissions both in the short and long-rnn. Air emissions and objectionable odors will occur during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. Air Quality analysis in the General Plan's Enviromnental Impact Report shows no significant impact to air quality at buildout of the City. The analysis was conducted with the assumption that land uses would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designations. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The project will not result in alterations of air movement, temperature, or moisture, or in any change in climate either locally or regionally. The scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No. The proposal will not result in changes to currents, to the course or direction of water movements in either marine or flesh waters. The project site is not located adjacent to either marine or fresh water sources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes. The proposal will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious b~ construction of buildings, accompanying harriscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, impacts are mitigated through site design. Existing drainage conveyances safely and adequately handle the existing runoff and any potential runoff which will be created by this project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes. The project will result in the alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. The project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Potential impacts can be mitigated through utilizing existing emergency response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate service provision as the City develops. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The proposal will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody. No major waterbodies are located in the subject project area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes. The proposal will result in discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with R:\STAFFRl:TXSIPA94.PC 10/24/94 Idb 29 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,g. 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. In addition, 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.h. No. The project will not result in the reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies. Water service currently exists at the project site. Additional water service will be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD) upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the properly owner (based upon transmittal dated June 20, 1994, a copy of which is on file with the Planning Department). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.i. Yes. The proposal will expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. Reference response 3.c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Plant Life 4.a-d. No. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. In addition, this property is not currently used as farm land and is not identified in the Draft General Plan as an area of agricultural significance. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts as a result of this project. Animal Life 5.a-e. No. The proposed project is in an area that has been experiencing urbanization for a number of years. The site is currently graded and there is no indication that any wildlife species exists at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to animal life as a result of this project. Noise 6.a. Yes. The proposal will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and any development of the land would result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. The project site is located within proximity to Interstate 15 and is within a Commercial/Industrial corridor. There are no sensitive receptors located in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long run. R:~STAFFRPT~81PA94.PC 10/24/94 klb 30 6.b,c. Yes. The project may expose people to severe noise levels and vibrations during the development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. The exposure to severe vibrations will be of short duration and will also not be considered significant. Li~,ht and Glare Yes. The proposal will ultimately produce and result in light/glare as all developmere of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Land Use Yes. The proposal will alter the present land use of the area, because the site is currently vacant. When the project is realized on the site the use of the land will be altered. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation for the site which identifies the site as Business Park (BP). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. No. The proposal will not result in an alteration to the future planned land use of the site as described in the City's General Plan. Reference response 8.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Natural Resources 9.a.b. Yes. The proposal will result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s). Developmere of the site will result in an increase in the rate of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. Risk of Upset 10.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. lO.c. No. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:'~STAFFRPT~81PA94,PC 10/24/94 Idb 3'1 %pulation 11. Maybe. The project may result in altering the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of the area because it will be creating jobs within the City of Temecula. The creation of new jobs has the potential to cause people to relocate to an area close to their employment. Due to the limited scale of the project, it will not result in the relocation of large numbers of people. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Housin~ 12. No. Reference response 11. Projects of this nature do not cause large numbers of people to relocate; 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 applicant has submitted a letter from a certified Engineer that states that impacts from this project to adjacent intersections will be less than five percent. Because a traffic analysis was conducted City-wide under the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report a focused traffic analysis is not required for individual projects that have less than a five (5) percent impact on affected intersections. Mitigation measures will be included in the conditions of approval for the project, as approved by the Public Works Department, that will mitigate any potential impacts from the project to a level less than significant. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected from development of the site. 3.b. Yes. The project will result in an increased demand for new parking. Sixty-two (62) parking spaces are required under Ordinance No. 348. The project as proposed includes sixty-three (63) parking spaces on-site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. No. The proposal will not create impacts upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation. The site is located adjacent to a fully improved Major Highway (Jefferson Avenue). Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Route 23 travels to the intersection of Winchester Road and Jefferson Avenue. approximately .32 miles from the project site. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) will not be required for this project because of the number of employees (under 100 at one shift). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.d. Yes. The proposal will result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. The site is currently vacant. People travelling to a site that was previously vacant will logically alter the present circulation pattern. As mentioned in response No. 13.c., the project is located adjacent to a fully improved Major Highway. The area is also developed with commercial/industrial uses. Because of these two factors, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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. R:\STAFFRPT~SlPA94.PC 10/24/94 Idb 32 13.f. Yes. The proposal will result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists e pedestrians. The hazards will increase as the project develops due to increased activity on the sits These impacts are not seen as significant. Impacts have been mitigated to a level less than significant through the site design, which is consistent with City standards. 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 project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.c. No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. Reference responses No. 11 and 12. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.d. No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered parks or other recreational facilities. Reference responses No. 11, 12, and 14.c. 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 of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not b, considered significant. This is because the Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposec expenses. 14.f. No. The proposal will not have a substantial affect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Energy 15.a. No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial 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 (construction materials, fuels for 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. 15.b. No. The project will not result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, nor will the project require the development of new sources of energy. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPTXSlPA94.PC 10/24/94 klb 33 'TtilitieS 16.a No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered adjacent to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.b. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, 16.c. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to water systems. Reference response 3 .h. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.d. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems. The project is located within Eastern Municipal Water District's (EMWD) sanitary sewer service area. Based upon information contained in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, adequate facilities exist (and are proposed) which will adequately service the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.e. Yes. The proposal will result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to on-site storm water drainage systems. Although the project is considered in-fill, the proposal will need to provide on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project. 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 solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.g. No. The proposal will not result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above. (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Human Health 17.a.b. No. The proposal will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The County of Riverside Health Services Agency has reviewed the project and its recommendations shall be included as conditions of approval for the project (as per County of Riverside Health Services Agency transmittal dated June 10, 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,b. No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, nor in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The project will be compatible in architectural style and scale with adjacent development. Landscaping and building articulation will provide buffers to existing view corridors. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18.c. No. The proposal will not result in detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area. Reference response 18.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Recreation 19. No. The proposal will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. Reference responses No. 11 and 12. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 20.a. No. The proposal will not result in the alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic site. According to the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report, this project is located in an area of low sensitivity for both archaeological and paleontological resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 20.b. No. The proposal will not result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object. Reference response 20.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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:\STAFFRPT~81PA94.PC 10t24/94 klb 35 'V. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Does the project have the potential to either: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish, wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Y_es Maybe N._Qo Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long term impacts will endure well into the future.) 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 HSH 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 communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code). Yes N__0_o R:\STAFFP, lrr~81PA94.~C 10/24/94 Idb 36 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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. Prepared by: 37 ATFACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRP~glPA94.FC 10/24/94 Idb ~ CITY OF TEMECULA / / / CASE NO. - PA94-0081 PLOT PLAN EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 7, 1994 VICINITY MAP CITY OF TEMECULA \ M llI SITE EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - M-SC (MANUFACTURING SERVICE COMMERCIAL) / BP P BP SC EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - SC SERVICE COMMERCIAL CASE NO. - PA94-0081 PLOT PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMI~ER 7, 1994 CITY OF TEMECULA e--Z CASE NO. - PA94-0081 PLOT PLAN EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 7, 1994 SITE PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA Z ZZ _.~ ..... ELEVATION 1 I' CASE NO. - PA94-0081 PLOT PLAN EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 7, 1994 ELEVATIONS ATTACHMENT NO. 5 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STAFFP, PT~81PAo~4.PC 10124/94 klb 39 E Z OZ Z ~Z < < ~ < < < ITEM NO. 9 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 7, 1994 City of Temecula Vendor's Ordinance Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for City of Temecula Vendor's Ordinance; and APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPROVE the City of Temecula's Vendor's Ordinance. City of Temecula City of Temecula An Ordinance pertaining to street vendors establishing regulations for outdoor vending. City Wide and EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: N\A North: N\A South: N\A East: N\A West: N\A PROPOSED ZONING: N\A GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: N\A EXISTING LAND USE: N\A SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: N\A South: N\A East: N\A West: N\A R:~STAFFRPT%VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 kJb PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area 26 square miles BACKGROUND At the July 12, 1994 City Council Meeting, during City Council reports, Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Stone requested staff prepare an Ordinance to address transient and road side vending within City limits for the purpose of assisting in enforcement. This matter was placed on the September 13, 1994 City Council ageride to allow the City Council the opportunity to provide direction to staff on the preparation of a vending ordinance. PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the present time, the City of Temecula has no vending ordinance which would permit vendors to sell wares within the City limits. The Old Town Specific Plan does contain language which allows vendors. This Ordinance has been modeled after the language contained in the Old Town Specific Plan. The purpose of this Ordinance is to set forth development standards for the siting of vendors within the City limits. These standards will ensure that the design and location of these vendors are consistent with the health, safety, and aesthetic objectives of the City. ANALYSIS Intent of the Ordinance It is the City's belief that vendors offer the citizens of the community an alternative service. Further, it is the intent of this Ordinance to promote public interest by contributing to an active pedestrian environment. The Vendor's Ordinance will allow for stands (i.e. pushcarts, wagons, etc.) to be located in areas that will safely accommodate the use by not interfering with pedestrian circulation and access or vehicle circulation or parking. Locational Characteristics Locations for vending in the City shall be approved by the Director of Planning. There should be at least 200 square feet of useable or recognizable plaza or courtyard area for each permitted outdoor vending cart. The area should be free of all obstructions within a six foot perimeter of the stand. All vending locations shall be on privately owned, developed, commercial property within City limits. Vending locations may change only upon written request by an applicant and approval of the Director of Planning. Aoolication Issuance and Fees Within, but no later than 30 days after filing of a completed application for a vendor's license, the applicant shall be notified of the decision on the issuance or denial of the license. Fees shall be determined by Resolution of the City Council and shall be paid with the submission of an application. R:\STAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 2 Term and Renewal All vendor's licenses shall be valid for one year unless revoked or suspended prior to expiration. An application to renew a license shall be made not later than 60 days before the expiration of the current license. License fees and renewal procedures shall be established in accordance with the Business License Registration Program procedures outlined in the Municipal Code. Prohibited Conduct and Hours Of Operation The Ordinance regulating vendors has specific restrictions (reference Section 7 of the Ordinance). These restrictions relate to the following: hours of operation; storage of the vending cart; trash control; sale of items; solicitation with persons in motor vehicles; and noise. Enforcement The Ordinance allows for the denial, suspension or revocation of a vendor's license in cases of fraud or misrepresentation; public health, safety and welfare; and conduct which is contrary to the Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION A Negative Declaration was prepared for this Ordinance which found no significant impacts as a result of the adoption of this Ordinance. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS It is the intent of the City of Temecula to establish an Outdoor Vending Ordinance to promote the public interest by contributing to an active pedestrian environment. It is further the intent of the Ordinance to regulate outdoor vending in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. This Ordinance provides a mechanism whereby vendors may legally operate within the City limits on privately owned, developed, commercial property. FINDINGS 1. Vendors offer the citizens of the community an alternative service, Vendors will promote the public interest by contributing to an active pedestrian environment. The action proposed is consistent with the General Plan Village Center policies which call for pedestrian oriented uses. The action proposed complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. R:~STAFFRPT~VENDOR,PC 11/2/94 klb 3 Attachments: Ordinance No. 94- - Blue Page 5 Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 13 Initial Study - Blue Page 17 R:~STAFFRPT~VI~NDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ORDINANCE N0.94- R:\STAFFRPT%VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 5 ORDINANCE NO. 94- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PERTAINING TO OUTDOOR VENDORS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR VENDING WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds that Outdoor Vending on private property promotes public interest by contributing to an active pedestrian environment, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula further finds that reasonable regulation of outdoor vending is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TE1VIECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. The planfling agency and City Council find, in approving projects, adopting land use regulations, and taking other actions, each of the following: 1. That the regulations of outdoor vending activities set forth herein are consistent with the General Plan (because the action proposed is consistent with the General Plan Village Center policies which call for pedestrian oriented uses). 2. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Section 2. "Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to set forth the development standards for the siting of outdoor vendors within the City limits. The purpose of these standards is to ensure that the design and location of these vendors are consistent with the health, safety, and aesthetic objectives of the City. It is a desire of the City that the design of this community be of the highest quality, that new development be architecturally distinctive as well as homogeneous in design, and that accessory facilities be compatible with the overall theme of the community. Recognizing that outdoor vendors offer the citizens of the community an alternative service, the regulations of this Chapter are enacted to: A. Promote public interest by contributing to an active pedestrian environment; R:~STAFFRPT~VENDOR. pC 11/2194 klb 6 B. Set forth the conditions and requirements under which outdoor vendors may be permitted to operate on private property. Section 3. Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter, the following words, terms, phrases, and their derivations, shall have the meanings given herein. Then, consistent with the context, words used in the present tense singular include the plural. AZ 'Applicant' means any person who seeks to obtain a vending license pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Chapter. B. 'Outdoor Vending License' means a license obtained pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Chapter which permits a vendor to sell food or merchandise from a vending stand on private property subject to the limitations of this Chapter and any other applicable laws. C. 'Outdoor Vendor' means any person who sells food or merchandise from a vending stand. D. 'Private Property' means privately owned, developed, commercial property within the City limits. E. 'Pushcart' means any device designed to be moved by human power, including, but not limited to, wagons, or other wheeled containers or conveyances. F. 'Vending' means the sale of food or merchandise from a vending stand operating on private property within the City limits. G. 'Vending Stand' means a pushcart, wagon, or any other wheeled vehicle or device which may be moved without the assistance of a motor or which may be towed by motor vehicle to the outdoor vending location and is used for the displaying, storing, or transporting of articles offered for sale by an outdoor vendor. Section 4. License and Application A. Licensing. It shall be unlawful to sell, or offer for sale, any food, beverage, or merchandise from a vending stand on any private property within the City limits without first obtaining an Outdoor Vending License. Existing businesses which legally operate outdoor displays of merchandise prior to the adoption of this Chapter, are not required to obtain an Outdoor Vending License for a period of one year from adoption of the Ordinance. B. Application. The application for an Outdoor Vending License shall be signed by the applicant and shall include the following: 1. The name, home, and business address of the applicant, and the name and address of the owner (if other than the applicant) of the vending stand to be used in the operation of the vending business. R:\STAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 7 2. A description of the type of food, beverage, or merchandise to be sold. 3. A description and photograph (including signage and colors) of any vending stand to be used in the operation of the business. 4. A site plan delineating the location of the vending stand. Section 5. Issuance and Fees. A. Not later than thirty (30) days after the filing of a completed application for an Outdoor Vending License, the applicant shall be notified of the decision on the issuance or denial of the Outdoor Vending License. 1. Fees shall be established by Resolution of the City Council and shall be paid prior to issuance of an Outdoor Vending License. 2. Licenses to vend outdoor within the City limits shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning in conjunction with the Business License Registration Program, Building and Safety, and Public Works Departments. 3. There should be at least two-hundred square feet (200 sq. ft.) of useable or recognizable pla7a or courtyard area for each allowed vending stand. The vending stand should be free of all obstructions within a six foot (6') perimeter. 4. Locations for vending in the City shall be approved by the Planning Director. Vending locations shall be designated based on the ability of the site to safely accommodate the use by not interfering with pedestrian circulation and access or vehicle circulation or parking. The Planning Director may require that the vending stand be removed from the location and stored out of public view when not in use. 5. Vending locations may change only upon written request by an applicant and/or Outdoor Vending Licensee and approval of the Director of Planning. in this Chapter. All vending locations shall be on private property as previously defined Section 6. Term and Renewal. A. All Outdoor Vending Licenses are valid for one year unless revoked or suspended prior to expiration. An application to renew an Outdoor Vending License shall be made not later than sixty (60) days before the expiration of the current Outdoor Vending License. License fees and renewal procedures shall be established in accordance with the Business License Registration Program procedures outlined in this Code. FkXSTAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb ~ conditions: Section 7. Prohibited Conduct and Hours of Operation. It shall be prohibited for any vendor to operate under any of the following 1. Operate between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the following day unless in conjunction with a special event as set forth in Ordinance No. 348, Section 19.51. 2. I.~ave any rending stand unattended. 3. Store, park, or leave any rending stand within any public fight-of-way or on any undeveloped or otherwise vacant property. 4. Sell food or beverages for immediate consumption unless there is a litter receptacle available nearby for public use. 5. Leave any location without first picking up, removing, and disposing of all trash or refuse remaining from sales made from the rending stand. 6. Allow any items relating to the operation of the vending business to be placed anywhere other than in, or under the yencling stand. 7. Set up, maintain, or permit the use of any additional table, crate, carton, rack, or other device to increase the selling or display capacity of the vending stand where such additional items have not been approved by the Director of Planning. 8. Solicit or conduct business with persons in motor vehicles. 9. Sell anything other than that which the Outdoor Vending License permits. 10. Sound or permit the sounding of any device which produces a loud and raucous noise, or use or operate any loud speaker, public address system, radio, sound amplifier, or similar device to attract the attention of the public. Section 8. Vendinp Stand Requirements. A. Every applicant shall submit a photograph or drawing of the vending stand to be used for review during the application approval process, showing materials, colors, and signage. B. No rending stand shall exceed four feet (4') in width, six feet (6') in length, and eight feet (8') in height. Section 9. Safety Requirements. A. All yencling stands in or from which food is prepared or sold shall comply with the following requirements: R:~STAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 9 1. All equipment installed in any pan of the vending stand shall be secured in order to prevent movement during transit and to prevent detachment in the event of a collision or overturn. 2. All utensils shall be stored in order to prevent their being hurled about in the event of a sudden stop, collision, or overturn. A safety knife holder shall be provided to avoid loose storage of knives. 3. Compressors, auxiliary engines, generators, batteries, battery chargers, gas fueled water heaters, and similar equipment shall be installed so as to be hidden from view to the extent possible and be easily accessible. Section 10. Display of Outdoor Vendlng License. A. All Outdoor Vending Licenses shall be displayed in a visible and conspicuous location at all times during the operation of the vending business. Section 11. Advertising. A. No advertising, except the posting of prices, shall be permitted on any vending stand, except to identify the name of the product or the name of the vendor. Section 12. Denial. Suspension. and Revocation. A. Any Outdoor Vending License may be denied, suspended, or revoked in accordance with the procedures contained in this Code for any of the following causes: 1. Fraud or misrepresentation contained in the application for the Outdoor Vending License. 2. Fraud or misrepresentation made in the course of carrying on the business of vending. 3. Conduct of the licensed business in such a manner as to create a public nuisance, or constitute a danger to the public health, safety, welfare, or morals. 4. Conduct which is contrary to the provisions of this Chapter. B. Any person wishing to appeal any denial, suspension, or revocation of an Outdoor Vending License may do so, pursuant to the authority and procedures of Chapter 2.36 of this Code. Section 13. Penalty for Violation A. Any violation of any of the requirements of this Chapter shall be an infraction and any violator may be punished pursuant to Section 1.20 et seq. of this Code." R:\STAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 10 Section 14. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, is for any reasons held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 15. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be appropriately codified in the Municipal Code. Section 16. 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~VENDOfl. PC 11/2/94 Idb 11 Section 17. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 19 RON ROBERTS MAYOR ATfEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gregory G. Diaz, Assistant City Attorney [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERS]DE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, , City Clerk of the City of , do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of ,19 . That thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __. day of , 19 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK R:\STAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 12 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 94- R:\STAFFRPT%VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 13 ATYACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CITY OF TEMECULA VENDOR'S ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, THF~ CITY OF TEMECULA prepared the Vendor's Ordinance 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, The Vendor's Ordinance was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Vendor' s Ordinance on November r 7, 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 the Vendor's Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETER_MINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findin~,s. A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of the City of Temecula's Vendor's Ordinance, makes the following findings, to wit: 1 Vendors offer the citizens of the community an alternative service. 2. Vendors will promote the public interest by contributing to an active pedestrian environment. 3. The action proposed is consistent with the General Plan Village Center policies which call for pedestrian oriented uses. 4. The action proposed complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. R:~STAFFRPT~VENDOR,PC 11/2/94 klb 14 B. The Planning Commission in approving the certification of the Negative Declaration of environmental impact under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, specifically finds that the approval of this Conditional Use Permit will have a di minimis impact on fish and wildlife resources. The Planning Commission specifically finds that in considering the record as a whole, the project involves no potential adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. This is based on the fact that this all vendors will be located on improved commercial property. The Planning Commission further finds that the City of Temecula is the project proponent and the site is located Citywide, Temecula, California. Furthermore, the Planning Commission finds that an initial study has been prepared by the City Staff and considered by the Planning Commission which has been the basis to evaluate the potential for adverse impact on the environment and forms the basis for the Planning Commission's determination, including the information contained in the public hearing records, on which a Negative Declaration of environmental impact was issued and this di minimis finding is made. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources, or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. Finally, the Planning Commission finds that the City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5(d). Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 4. Not Applicable. R:%STAFFRPT%VI~NDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 15 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of November, 1994. STEVEN J. 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 7th day of November, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNHILL SECRETARY R:XSTAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 16 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL STUDY R:~STAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2194 klb 17 City of Temecula ?lanning Department Initial Environmental Study I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Name of Project: 2. Case Numbers: 3. Location of Project: 4. Description of Project: 5, Date of Environmental Assessment: II. Name of Proponent: Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Vendor's Ordinance N\A City Wide An Ordinance to address transient and road side rending within City limits, October 19, 1994 City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590 ENVIRONIVIENTAL LMPACTS (Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section III) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures? __ __ X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering of the soil? __ __ X__ c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? __ __ X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ _ X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? __ __ X___ f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion? __ __ X g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake? __ __ X_._ Yes Maybe R:%STAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 1 ~ 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? 2. 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? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? 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? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Yes Maybe N._.qo X X X X X X X X X X X X X R:\STAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 19 Yes Maybe N__o Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants? Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? x__ 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: 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)? 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? e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? 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 Alteration to the f~ture planned land use of an area as described in a community or general plan? X 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 R:\STAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 20 Yes 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticides, chemicals. oil or radiation)? __ b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticicles, chemicals, or radiation)? __ c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? _ 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ 12. 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? __ c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? __ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? __ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? __ 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon. or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? Maybe N__Q X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X R:\STAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 21 Yes Maybe N._q e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? x__ Other governmental services: _ x__ 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? 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? x__ b. Communications systems? c. Water systems? _ x__ d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks? x__ e. Storm water drainage systems? Solid waste disposal systems? _ x__ Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above? x__ 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and schools) to toxic pollutant emissions? _ x__ 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? __ __ c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities? R:\STAFFRPT~VENDOR. PC 1112194 klb 22 Yes Maybe N._~o 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic site? X Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? R:~STAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 23 ~I. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Earth The proposal will not result in unstable earth conditions, changes in geologic substructures; disruptions, displacement, compaction or overcovering of the soil; changes in topography; destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features; any increase in wind or water erosion of soils; changes in siltation, deposition or erosion; modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake. The project(s) may result in the exposure of people to geologic hazards such as earthquakes since all of Southern California subject to earthquake activity. No Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones exist in the City. All vendors will be located on commercial property that is fully improved. No significant impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. Air The proposal will not result in air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality; the creation of objectionable odors, or any alteration of air movement, temperature or moisture, or any change in climate. All vendors will be located on commercial property that is fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. Water The proposal will not result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements; changes 'n absorption rates, drainage panems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff; alterations to the course or .low of flood waters; a change in the amount of surface water in any water body; discharge into surface waters, or alteration of surface water quality; alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters; changes in the quantity of ground waters; reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies; or exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. All vendors will be located on commercial property that is fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. Plant Life The proposal wfil not result in a change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants; reduction in the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants; introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species; or a reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop. All vendors will be located on commercial property that is fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. Animal Life The proposal will not result in a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals; reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of animals; introduction of new wildlife species into an area; a barrier to the migration or movement of animals; or deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat. All vendors will be located in commercial areas that are fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required R:~STAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2194 kJb 24 Noise The proposal will not expose people to severe noise levels or vibrations. The proposal may result in increases in existing noise levels. All vendors will be located on commercial property that is fully improved. Increases in noise levels will be minimal due to the small size of the vending cart. Commercial areas are generally not noise sensitive areas. All vendors will be located in commercial areas that are fidly improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. Light and Glare The project site is located within the Mourn Palomar Observatory Special Lighting District. The lighting standards within this district require that only low pressure sodium street and security lights be installed and all other lighting must be oriented or shielded to reduce the glare in the night sky near the observatory. Additional light and glare may result from the development of the site for a vendor. The impact of the additional light and glare will be mitigated by following the standards of the Mount Palomar Observatory Special Lighting District (Ordinance No. 655) and through the appropriate design of the lighting system. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. Land Use The proposal will result in a minor alteration to the present land use of an area in that a vendor may be introduced into a commercial shopping area. No alteration to the future planned land use of an area will occur. All vendors will be located in commercial areas that are fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. Natural Resources The proposal will not result in the rate of use of any natural resources or the depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource. All vendors will be located in commercial areas that are fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. Risk of Upset The proposal will not result in a risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident; the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials; or possible interference with an emergency response or evacuation plan. The vendors will not be dealing with hazardous materials. All vendors will be located in commercial areas that are fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. Population The proposal will not alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of an area. The size of the vending carts is of such a minor nature that it will not create impacts. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. R:\STAFFRPT~VENOOR.PC 11/2194 kib 25 'tousino The proposal, due to its nature, will not affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing. All vendors will be located in commercial areas that are fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. Transportation/Circulation The proposal will not generate substantial additional vehicular movementz effect existing parking facilities; create a demand for new parking; impact existing transportation systems, including public transportation; alter present panems of circulation or movement of people and/or goods; alter waterborne, rail, or air traffic: or increase traffic hazards. All vendors will be located in commercial areas that are fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. Public Services The proposal will not have an effect on public services including fire, police, schools, parks or the maintenance of any public facilities. All vendors will be located in commercial areas that are fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. Energy The proposal will not result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy, substantially increase demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy. All vendors will be located in commercial areas that are fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. Utilities The proposal will not result in the need for new systems or substantial alterations to power, communications systems, water systems, sanitary systems, storm water drainage systems, or solid waste disposal systems. All vendors will be located in commercial areas that are fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. Human Health The proposal will not result in the creation of any health hazard or the exposure of people to potential health hazards. All vendors will be located in commercial areas that are fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. Aesthetics The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public or create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. While the vending carts could possibly have detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area, the carts will be conditioned to be architecturally compatible with their surroundings. All vendors will be located in commercial areas that are fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. R:\STAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 1112194 ktb 26 Recreation The proposal will not result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources. All vendors will be located in commercial areas that are fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. Cultural Resources The proposal will not result in the alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic sites; adverse physical or aesthetic effects to prehistoric or historic buildings, structures or objects; any potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values; or restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. All vendors will be located in commercial areas that are fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation is required. R:\STAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 Idb 27 'V. MANDATORY HNDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Does the project have the potential to either: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish, wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Yes Maybe N_.Q Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental goals? (A short term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long term impacts will endure well into the future.) 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 HSH 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 communities. including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code). Yes N__o X R:~STAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 11/2/94 klb 28 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fred that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Prepared by: Signature Name and Title Date R:XSTAFFRPT~VENDOR.PC 1112/94 klb 29