HomeMy WebLinkAbout120594 PC AgendaCAIJ~ TO ORDER:
ROLL C~LL:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
December 5, 1994, 6:00 PM
Rancho California Water District - Board Room
42135 Winchester Road, Temeeula, CA 92390
Chainuan Ford
Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Websterand Ford
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that
are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to
the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be
fTlled out and flied with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your narae 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. Direetor's Hearing Update
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Planning Application No. PAge-0112 - DIRECT Staff to approve Pinning Application No.
94-0112 for a forty-five (45) foot high, approximately eighty-six (86) square foot freestanding
freeway oriented sign for Chevron. (Continued from November 7, 1994)
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
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
Case No: Vendor's Ordinanee
Applieint: City of Temecula
Location: City Wide
Proposal: V~ndor'S Ordinance
Environmental Action: Negative Declaration
Planner: Debbie Ubnoske
Recommendation: Recommend Approval
Next meetings: January 9, 1994, 6:00 p.m. for Johnson Ranch Only, January 23, 1994, 6:00 p.m. for
the regular meeting and both will be held at the Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135
Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
PLANNING DIRF. CfOR'S RI~ORT
planning Commigsion Meeting Schedule for 1995
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER nUSP4F_~
copying
~WIMBI~VO~LANCOMI~AO~NDA~I2-S=9~ 12/l~g~ kk ~
ITEM #2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Plannin~~
December 5, 1994
Director's Hearing Case Update
The following cases were heard at Director's Hearings in November, 1994:
PA94-0090, Revision to approved Vesting Tentative Tract 23125
PA94-0113, Minor Change
PA94-0087, Extension of Time for Plot Plan 247
Attachment:
1. Planning Director's Hearing Action Agendas for November, 1994 - Blue Page 2
ATTACHIV!E~NT NO. 1
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S ]:I~,.~RING ACTION AGENDAS
ACTION AGENDA
TF_,M~CITLA DIRECTOR'S I:rl~AR,ING
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEV[BER 9, 1994 2:00 PM
TEMZECULA CITY HALL ~ MAIN CONFERF~NCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER:
Dcbbie Ubnoskc, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMlVIEPffS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address m the Senior
Planner on items that axe not 1bred on the Agenda. Spe2kers axe 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 filled out and flied with the
Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC FPF~&RING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
planning Application No. P&94-0090
Kaufman & Broad
The northeasterly comer of Butterfield Stage Road and De
Portoh Road
A revision to approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23125 to
add four additional parcels
Re-certify previously adopted Environmental Impact Report
Craig Ruiz
Approve
ACTION:
APPROVED
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S gF~ARING
REGULAR 1willING
NOVEIVIBER 17, 1994 1:30 PM
TEMECUI, A CITY HAIL - MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecn!n, CA 92590
C,AIJ, 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. St~kars are limited to three (3) minutes each. If
you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item ~tO~ listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled 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 fled with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
PA94-0113, Minor Change
Kaufman & Broad of San Diego
Northeasterly comer of Butterfield Stage Road and De Ponola
Road
Modification to previously adopted conditions of approval
Re-certify previously adopted negative declaration
Craig Ruiz
Approve
APPROVED
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
PlsnninE Application No. PA94-0087
Angelo Boussiacos
40545 Winchester Road
First extension of time for Plot Plan No. 247, the construction of
a 3,800 square foot building.
Recertif-y Previously Adopted Negative Declaration
Craig Ruiz
Approve
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM #3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
December 5, 1994
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
This project was continued by the Planning Commission at their meeting on November 7,
1994. At that meeting, Staff was directed to explore options for freeway identification. In
addition, Staff was directed to expand upon the statement made in the November 7, 1994
Staff Report that: "view impacts from Rancho California Road should be taken into
consideration by the Commission in their review of the request."
Staff contacted the City of Escondido Planning Department and was informed that they were
not familiar with a sign along the freeway, and if there was one there, it was not approved by
the City. They stated that most likely, the sign was approved by Caltrans. Staff contacted
Caltrans and as of the date of this report is awaiting a response on this matter. The
Commission will be provided an update of this matter at the December 5, 1994 meeting.
In regard to "view impacts'" it should be noted that the proposed sign will be higher than the
existing sign. This will result in a sign that is more visible to motorists on Rancho California
Road, as one proceeds westbound over the freeway overpass. Because of the north/south
orientation of the existing sign and the same orientation of the proposed sign, the majority of
the face of the sign will not be visible to motorists along Rancho California Road. The sign
will be most visible to motorists along Front Street.
Staff received a copy of Caltrans policy relative to freeway signage that is used to advertise
services. The specific criteria is contained within the Caltrans "Motorist Services Informational
Signing Program" (Reference Attachment No. 1 ). This Program establishes minimum business
sign eligibility requirements for gas, food, lodging and camping facilities and aDplies to areas
which Caltrans refers to as "rural populations" - those under 5,000 in population. Based upon
this criteria, the Chevron Station would not be eligible for this type of signage.
Signage along the freeWay, not within the Caltrans right-of-way (i.e., private property) that
advertises a business not located on that specific parcel would be considered off-site
advertising. This type of advertising is not currently permitted in the City of Temecula.
Ordinance No. 93-09 was adopted by the City Council in order to stop the proliferation of
billboards (off-site advertising).
Attachments:
1. Caltrans "Motorist Services Informational Signing Program" - Blue Page
R:~TAPFRFI~II2PA94.PC2 11/30/94
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CALTRANS "MOTORIST SERVICES INFORMATIONAL SIGNING PROGRAM"
R:~TAPPItPT~l12PA94.PC2 11/30/~4 klb 3
Slate o( Calilornia
8us~ness and Trans;nrtation Agency
Oedatment of TransOo~atmn
Oivisinn ol Right ot Way
MOTORIST SERVICES INFORMATIONAL SIGNING PROGRAM
· BUSINESS SIGN ELIGIBIUTY
MINIMUM STATE CRITERIA
The minimum State criteria by which gas, food, fodging and camping establishments may quality for patticreation in
the Department's Motorist Services Informational Signing Program are as follows:
"GAS", "FOOD", "LODGING" and "CAMPING"
A. A qualified motorist service business shall give written assurances of its conformity with all applicable
laws concerning the provisions of public accommodations without regard to race, religion. color. sex, or
national origin and shall not be in continuing breach of that assurance.
8. The business Oremises snail have a generally neat, clean. and comfortable appearance and an adequate
scope of services as ~etermined by the Department.
· 'GAS" The business:
A.
Shall be located not more than one (1) mile from the interchange where the business sign is to be
disDlayed as measured by the vehicular distance from the gore of the off-ramp which provides the most
direct access to the Qualified business with the traveled way of the freeway, and the nearest point of
intersection of the traveled way of a public highway with the nearest driveway of the business premises of
the qualified business.
B. Shall provide vehicle services, including but not limited to, fuel, oil, tire repair and battep/and radiator
water.
C. Shall provide public restroom facilities, each Containing at least a sink, running water and a flush toilet.
D. Shall provide a drinking water fountain for public use.
E. Shall provide a public telephone.
F. Shall be open for business, with all of the above services and facilities available, and in continuous
operation. for at least 16 consecutive hours daily, 7 days a week, except that the qualified business shall
not be considered to be in violation of this requirement when, as a result of a shortage of fuel, the
facility is closed or when its hours of operation are reduced.
G. Shall obtain and display any appropriate license or permit as may be required by law.
"FOOD" The business:
A. Shall be located not more than three (:3) miles from the interchange where the business sign is to be
displayed as measured by the vehicular distance from the gore of the off-ram which provides the most
direct access to the qualified business with the traveled way of the fleeway, an~d the nearest point of
intersection of the traveled way of a public highway with the nearest driveway of the business premises
of the qualified business.
B. Shall accumulate at teast seven (7) points in the following four (4) categories.
1-93
Category 1. If thedistance from the interchange where the business sign ~s .*: :-e ~!.,'olayea as
measured by th.e venicuiar distance from the gore of the off-ramp which ~rsv:.~-:_= :-:- '.us: ~;rect
access to the eualified business with the traveled way of the freeway. i~.G =:. 'earns: u,~mr
of intersection Gf the traveled way of a public nighway with the ".e.'res: :::re-.=. :' :':e :=sEnnas
premises of the Qualified business
0 to ½.mile, inclusive assign 3 points
over ½ mile to 1. mile, inclusive assign 2 points
'. over l mile to 3 miles, inctusive assign l point
Category 2- If the number of traffic control devices consisting of traffic slg=--:a ;r stop signs
between the gore of the off-ram[} which provides the most direct access to .:n-: ::artfled business with
the traveled way of the freeway and the nearest driveway of the business orer-'s5s :f the oualified
business
0 - 1 device assign 3 points
2 - 3 devices assign2 points
4 - 5 devices assign I point
More t~-_n5 devices assign 0 points
-Category 3. :,lust establish eiigibiiiiy under one of the
~" (a) If the number of indoor seats totals:
50 or more seats assign 3 points
30 seats to 49 seats assign 2 points
15 seats to 29 seats assign I point
Less than 15 seats assign 0 points
following two
(b) If the parking facilities for drive-in or drive-through service totals:
20 or more spaces assign 3 points
11 spaces to 19 spaces assign 2 points
5 spaces to 10 spaces assign 1 point
Less than 5 spaces assign 0 points
Category 4. When the distance as measured from the gore of the interohan_~e where ~e business sign
is to be displayed to the gore of the next exit served by a food establishamm .mich business would
qualify for signing is:
Over 10 miles
Over 3 miles to 10 miles, inclusive
1 mile to 3 miles, inclusive
Less than 1 mile
assign 3 points
assign 2 points
assign Z point
a.~ge 0 points
C. Shall be in compliance with respect to licensing, approval and regulation by any. St_,+.e agency aM/or any
political subdivision of the State having or exercising jurisdiction over the b,,c,na. ss premises. Licenses
and pensits required and issued by the State or its political subdivisions shall be di~laybd on the
premises.
O. Shall provide a public telephone.
-2-
E. Shall provide public restroom facilities, each containing at least a sink. r..-~,ing wa~er. and a flush toileL
F. Shall be oOen for business. with all of the above services and facilities ~.~---;iable. -::.r, in continuous
operation for at least 12 consecutive hours daily, beginning not later than 7 a.m.. 7 ~ays a week, and
serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
"LODGING" The business:
A. Shall be located not moie than three (3) miles from the interchange where me business sign is to be
displayed as measured by fie vehicular distance from the gore of the off-razo which provides the most
direst access to the qualified business with the traveled way of the freeway., and ~e nearest point of
intersection of the traveled way of a public highway with the nearest drive'wly of the b~siness premises
of the qualified business.
B. Shall accumulate at least seven {'~ points in the following four (4) cate~om,,.
Category L If the distance from the interchange where tOe business si~t is to be displayed as
measured by the vehicular distance from the gore of the off-ramp which .-forides tOe most direct access
to the qualified business with the traveled way of tOe freeway, and the nearest ooir~ of intersection
of the traveled way of a public highway witO tOe nearest driveway of ~',e business ~--remises
of tOe qualified business is:
0 to ½ mite, inclusive assLgo 3 points
Over ~ mile to 3. mile, inclusive assign 2 points
Over Z mile to 3 miles, inclusive assign ]. point
Category 2, If the number of t~affic tonal devices consisting of traffic sisals or stop signs beh~sen
the gore of the off-ramp which provides tOe most direct access to the ,-'jalified business with the
traveled way of the freeway and We nearest driveway of the business ;,r~ises of ~e qualified
business
0- I device
2- 3 devices
4- 5 devices
More tOan5 devices
assigo3~ints
assigo2points
assign 1 point
Category3. If tOenumberof ledgin; units, eanhwithprivate batofaniiities,
50 or more units : assign3~othts
30 units to49onits as~gn2points
Z5 units to 29 units assign Z point
Les,~tOan 15 units usignOpoints
Category 4. When tOe distance as measured from the gore of tOe intem3~le wr~em tOe business sign
is tO be displayed to tOe gore of tOe next exit served by a lodging estaffishmem M~ich would qualify for
signing is:
Ove~ 10 miles
Over 3 miles to 10 miles, inclusive
1 mile to 3 miles, inclusive
Less than 1 mite
assign 3points
assign2points
assign 1 point
assign O points
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning~/'~/
DATE:
December 5, 1994
SUBJECT:
Planning Application No. 94-0071 - Second Extension of Time for Plot Plan No.
226, the Construction of Three Commercial Buildings Totalling 27,000 Square
Feet Located on the Southwest Corner of Pauba Road and Margarita Road
Prepared By:
Craig Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE Planning Application No. 94-0071, Second Extension
of Time for Plot Plan No. 226 to construct three commercial
buildings totalling 27,000 square feet
BACKGROUND
This project was continued by the Planning Commission at their meeting on November 7,
1994. At that meeting, Staff was directed to provide additional background information
concerning previous Commission approvals of this project (See Attachment Nos. 2,3,4 & 5).
In addition, Staff was directed to expand upon the following issues: traffic and street
improvements, increased public opposition, General Plan Consistency and findings to deny the
project.
Previous Commission Action
Several Commissioners expressed concerns that sufficient background was not provided for
the benefit of the two newly appointed Commissioners. Staff has provided the minutes from
the three previous Commission hearings for this project (see Attachment Nos. 2, 3 & 4). Staff
has also provided the staff report from the August 5, 1991 meeting which specifically
addresses each issue of concern raised at the July 1, 1991 Commission meeting (see
Attachment No. 5).
To briefly summarize, this project was first heard by the Planning Commission in July of 1991.
At that meeting the Commission expressed concerns relative to the southerly slope of the
project, building elevations, sidewalks, and landscape buffering. At the August 5, 1991
meeting, the Commission determined that the issues had been sufficiently addressed and
approved the project unanimously.
On September 20, 1993, the project was before the Commission requesting an extension of
time. After a brief discussion addressing on-site drainage, the Commission again unanimously
approved the project. One of the findings made by the Commission was that the proposed
project was consistent with the City's Draft General Plan.
Traffic and Street Imor0vements
At the November 7, 1994 meeting, members of the public and the Commission expressed
concerns regarding both existing and future traffic levels at this location. Presently, the
intersection of Pauba and Margarita Roads operate at a Level of Service A (LOS A) or the
lowest level of impact. LOS categories range from LOS A (free-flow condition with no
congestion) to LOS F (gridlock condition with severe congestion). When Pauba and Margarita
Roads are constructed to their ultimate widths (88 feet and 110 feet respectively), the roads
will continue to operate at a LOS A.
As for the construction of improvements in this area, this project is required by the conditions
of approval to construct half-width improvements for both Pauba and Margarita Roads
adjacent to the boundaries of this site. The conditions of approval also require the project to
pay signal mitigation fees and development impact fees. In addition, the intersection of Pauba
and Margarita Roads is scheduled to receive a traffic signal in Fiscal Year 1995-1996 (FY 95-
96) as part of the City's 5-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). However, the construction
of the signal is dependant upon the completion of a Warrant Study that determines that the
traffic volumes necessitate the installation of a signal. Finally, Pauba Road, west of Margarita
Road is designated a Level II CIP road widening project. The design of the road is scheduled
for FY 95-96 and construction is scheduled for FY 96-97.
Public OnDosition:
The Commission expressed concerns regarding the amount of public opposition to the
proposed project. When this project was heard in July of 1991, only one member of the
public spoke in opposition of the project. At the August 5, 1991 and September 20, 1993
hearings, no one spoke in opposition to the project. However, at the September 15, 1994
Director's Hearing five people spoke in opposition and at the November 7, 1994 Commission
meeting, nine people spoke in opposition. Staff attributes the increased public opposition to
the newly enacted noticing requirements adopted by the City Council. In 1991 and 1993,
only property owners within 600 feet received notice of the project. This resulted in 13
people being notified. The new requirements require public notices be sent to people within
300 feet or the nearest 30 individual property owners, whichever is greater. In this case, staff
provided public notice to 39 surrounding property owners.
General Ran Consistency
The General Plan land use designation for this property is Neighborhood Commercial (NC).
During the General Plan process, staff recommended that land use designations be consistent
with previous City actions. Therefore, because this commercial development was originally
approved by the City, and the underlying zoning on this parcel is Highway Tourist Commercial,
staff and the Commission recommended and the Council adopted a land use designation of
NC.
As noted by staff at the November 7, 1994 Commission meeting, 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 25,000 and
75,000 square feet in size.' The size and scale of the proposed project meets the these
standards.
The Commission also e~pressed concern that the project may not be consistent with the
Village Center concept of the General Plan. This site is not designated within a Village Center
Overlay area in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. While the General Plan encourages
all commercial projects to incorporate Village Center design concepts, this is not a
requirement. Therefore, because the project is not required to incorporate Village Center
design concepts, the project is not inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the General
Plan.
Discussion of Findines
If the Commission wishes to deny this project, the Commission has two options which to base
this decision. First, the Commission may find that the project is inconsistent with the General
Plan. Second, the Commission may find that there are new public health and safety issues
that were not considered in September of 1993 when the Commission previously found the
project to be consistent with the Draft General Plan. It is staff's opinion, based upon
discussions with the Assistant City Attorney, that making either of the above findings would
be difficult, based upon the evidence submitted to date. Further, without additional evidence
to support those findings, it would be difficult to legally defend the Commission's position.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Planning Commission Staff Report November 7, 1994 - Blue Page 4
Planning Commission Minutes for July 1, 1991 - Blue Page 5
Planning Commission Minutes for August 5, 1991 - Blue Page 6
Planning Commission Minutes for September 20, 1993 - Blue Page 7
Planning Commission Staff Report - August 5, 1991 - Blue Page 8
Planning Commission Staff Report - July 1, 1991 - Blue Page 9
Planning Commission Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 10
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 15
R:~TAFFRPT~71PA94,PC2 1211/94 Idb 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 7, 1994
R:~STAFFI~71PA94.PC2 12/1/94/rib
STAFF REPORT o 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 rec,>mmends the Planning
Commission:
RE-AFFIRM the previously adopted Negative Declaratior.
for Plot Plan No. 226, and
ADOPT Resolution No. 94- approving PA94-0071,
Second Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 226, baseL!
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report; and
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA94-0071, Second
Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 226, subject to thd
attached Conditions of Approvas-
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 Pa Jba 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!
EXISTING LAND USE:
VaCaFIt
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 subsecluently
scheduled for a Planning Director's hearing on September 15, 1994. At the September 1 .r
meeting, several surrounding property owners expressed opposition to the extension of tim6
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 ol3position, the
Planning Director decided to bring the matter before the Planning Commission.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the construction of three commercial "spec" btjildings totalling 26,920
square feet.
ANALYSIS
Neiahborhood Compatibility
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 25,000 and 75,000 square 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.
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. Alcohoi 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 from 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 Plannin.q Application No, PA94
0071 is required. Mitigation measures contained in the conditions ~,f approval will mitigate
potential impacts creat3d 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
herein.
No subsequent changes are proposed in the project which ~vould require revisions tG
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 Neighborhoou
Commercial. The size and scale of the development is intenc~.=d to meet the needs o;
the surrounding neighborhood as required by the General
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely a.-~ect the public health or
general welfare of the community due to the fact that the p~oject meets the criteria
prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.1 and 18.30,
R:~TAFFRPT~TlPA94.PC 1111/94 k~o 3
The proposal will ~ot 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 ano
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 ewjenced on the underlying
Tentative Parcel Map showing access to Pauba Road and Ma:garita 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 N0.1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-__
ATTACHlVIENT NO. 1
PC ILESOLUTION NO.
A 1111~-qOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMI,~SION OF
~ CITY OF TEMECIYLA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA94-0071, SECOND EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR PLOT PLAN NO 226 TO CONSTRUCT THR~.I~.
COMlVII~CIAL BUTf.IalNGS TOT.aLING 26,920 SQUARE
F~.~.T ON A PARCI~.L CONTAINING 3.45 ACRES LOCATED
ON TIP;. SO~TERLY CORNER OF IVIARGARITA
ROAD AND PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSF. SSOR'S
PARCI~,I_ NO.945-110-003
WltERI*./kS, Ted Zonos filed planning Application No. Manning Application No. PA94-
0071 in accordnnce with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County l ~nd Use and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
Wltk'REAS, planning Application No. PA94-0071 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
W!~.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 timc
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
W~,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 penons deserving
to be heard, the Planning Director continued the hearing to the planning Commission:
I,V H I~:REAS, the planning COmmi-~sion considered plnnning 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 opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WBs:u~AS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and consiiering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating tO planning ApplicatioR lqo. PA94-0071;
NOW, Tm~.R1,.I~ORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THF. CITY OF
~ DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOI.I.OWS:
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 foliowing findings:
A. PuEnant tO' Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the followin~
findings 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 designe~ 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 proposeu:l 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 p!annln;~
Application No. PA93-0137, First Extension of Time are found to remain valid except as
mended heroin.
2. No subsequent changes am proposed in the project which would nxluire
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 F.~onsion of Time for Plot
Plan No. 226 is consistent with the City' s Generdl Phln Land Use Designation of Neighborhood
Commercial. The size and scale of the dovelepment is intended it- meet the needs of the
surrounding neighborhood as required by the General Plan.
4. The pwject as designed and condi~oned 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 rapresent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the
al'ea.
6. 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.
7. The site ks suitable to accommodam the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation pattoms, access, an.1 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 and proposed dedicated fight-
of-ways which are open to, and are useable by, vehicular traffic as evilencocl on the underlying
Tentalive Parcel Map showing accoss to Pauba Road and Margafita I~oad.
R:XS'rAFFRFrX71pA94.1~ 1111/94 lab 7
9. -~aid firdines are supporoM by maps, e.:hibits and environmenta'
documcn~ associated with these applications and hcre~n incoxponU~ by rcfcrencc.
C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, planning Application No. PA94-007!
Second Extension of Time for Plot Plan No. 226 as proposed, ~onforms 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 Environmental
Quality Act, specifically finds that the approval of this Conditional Use Permit will have a di
mlnirnls impact on fiih and wDdlife resetires. The planning Commis,~ion specifically fmds that
in considering the record as a whole, the project involves no potent~'~l adver~ effect, either
individ-ally or eumulatively, on wDdlife as the ~ame is died in Section 711.2 of the Fish and
Game Code. This is based on th~ faet that this is loeatM in an urban ~ea and is primarily infil2
in uature. The planning Commission further finds that Ted Zones is the project proponent and
the site is located on the southwesterly comer of Margarita Road and Pauba Road in the Cit~
of Temecula, California. The project includes the construction of thx'ee commercial buildings
and that all of the ~ame at~ located in the County of RiveEide.. :.Furthermore, the plannin,~,
Commission finds that an initial study ha~ been prepared by the City Staff and considered by the
Planning Commission which has been th~ bash to evaluate the potent..al for adverse impact or
the environment and forms the basis for the planning Commission' s determination, including the
information eel;mined 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 PinnninL-'
Commission finds that there is no evidence before the City that the ~oposed project will hav.'
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 ha% on the bash of substantial
evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect coomined 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 ease 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 Temecala planning Comrai.~sion hereby
approves Planrag Application No. PA94-0071 to construct three commercial buildings Iotailia,c,
26,920 squaxe feet located southwesterly comer of Margarita 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 part hereof.
R:X.~TAFIq~rfi71PA~.P~ 1111/94
8
Section $. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED thi~ 7t], *lay Of November, 1994.
STEVEN :L FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HRRRRy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was dul3 adopted by the planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a mgulax meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of
November, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PEG COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COIVlNIISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI-~
SECREI ARY
R:~STAFFRF~71pA94.PC 11/1t94 ~ 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
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 26,920 square feet
on a 3.45 parcel in the Scenic Highway Tourist Commercial ~C-P-S) zone.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-110-003
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Reauirements
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.
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.
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 concernin~i ~1anning 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
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.
The applicant shall make application and pay all applicable 'fees for a Consistency
Check with the Oepartment of Building and Safety Deparcmel:t.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage or a Sign Program shall be
submitted and approved by the Planning Director.
R:~TAFIrRIrBT1PA94.I~C 1111/94 klb 11
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.
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 e
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
Occupancy.
OTHER AGENCIES
15.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Metropolitan
Water Department transmittal dated September 27, 1994, a c )py of which is attached.
12
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
LIST OF POTENTIAL USES
R:~TAFFRPT~71PA94.PC 1111194 klb 13
:?
ARTICLE IXb
C-P-S ZONE
SCENIC HZGHWAY COffi(RCIAL)
The folioring regulations shall apply tn el] C-P-S Zones:
SECTZON g.50. USES PERHZTTED.
ee
The following uses are permitted, only in enclosed buildings with not
more than 200 square feet of outside storage or display of materials
appur~enant to such use, provtded a plot plan shall have been epproved
pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of this ordinance:
(1) Ambulance services
Appqtance stores, household
(4) Art supply shops and studios
(5) Auditoriums Ind conference roans
(6) Auranob.tie parts and supply stores
(7) Bakery goods distributors
(8) Bakery shops, Including baklng only when incidental to retail
sales on the prentses
(9) Banks and financial institutions
(10) Barber and beauty shops
(11) Bars and cocktall lounges
(12) Bicycle sales end rentals
(13) Billtard and pool halls
~l Blueprint and duplicating services
Book stores end binders
( Z6 )Bowl i ng al 1 eys
(17) Catering services
(18) Cer~ic sales and manufacturing for on-site sales, provided the
total volme of kiln space does not exceed sixteen (16) cubic
feet
Cleaning and dyetng shops
Clothi ng stores
Confectionery or candy Stores
Costume design studios
· Dance hal 1 s
' De1 tcatessens
Department stores
(zo)
(z2)
Drug stores
Dry goods stores
28) Electrical substations
t3Z09 Employment Igencl es
Escort bureaus
31) Feed and grain .sales
IIlFishing and casting pools
F1 ori st shops
(34) Food markets end frozen food lockers
73
,~
J
(35) Gtft sho;s
(36) Hardware stores
(37) Household goods sales and rapaft, Including but not ltmtted to,
ne~ and used appliances. furniture, carpets, draperies, la~ps.
tadtoe, and television sets, tnclutlng repair thereof
(38) Hobby shops
(39) :Zce cree shops
(40) Zce sales, not tncludlng tee plants
(4:Z) Zntertor decorating shops
(42) Jewelry stores wtth Incidental repairs
(43) Labor teraples
(44) Laboratories, film. dental, madteal. research or testing
(45) Laundries and laundrcmats
(46) Leather goods stores
(47) Ltquor stores
(48) Locksmith shops
(49) Hatl order businesses
(50) Hanufacturer's agent
(5:~) Harket, food, ~holesale or .lobbar
(52) Hassage parlors, turktsh baths, health centers and
personal servl ce establ t s~ents
(53) Heat markets, not Including slaughtering
(54) Htmeographing and addressograph services.
(55) Hobllehomes, provided they are kept mobtle and ]tcensed pursuant
to state law, use for:
a. Construction offtees and caretaker's quarters on construction
s~tes for the duratton of a valid bu~lolng pemtt,
they are Inconspicuously located
b. Agricultural worker e~plo~nent offtees for a max~m~ of 90
days tn any calendar ~ear
c. Caretakers or wotci~en and their f~ltes provided no rent
pa~d, where a permitted and existtrig c.~nerd al use
established. Not more than one mob~lehme shall be allowed
for a parcel of land or a shopptng center c~plex
(56) Huslc Stores
(57) News stores
(58) Notions or novelty stores
(59) Nurseries and garden suppl~ stores
(60) Offices, business
(6Z) One on-s~te operator'S residence. ~htch may be ~ocated
c~erctal bullring.
(52) Paint and wall paper stores. not Including patnt contractors
(63) Parktrig lots and perktrig structures
(64) Pawn shops
(65) Pet shops and pet supply shops
Plumbing shops. not Including plumbtng contractors
(68) Poultr~ markets. not Including slaughtering.or ]1re sales
(69) Prtnters or publishers
(70) Produce markets
(7Z) Radio and television broadcasting studios
74
Refres~nent stands
(74) Restaurants and other eating estsblts~ents
(75) Schools, business and professional, Including art. barber,
beauty, dance ~rs~a, music and swimming
76) Shoe stores and repair shops
ilShoeshine stands
Signs, on-Site edve~tstng
79) Spo~ctng goods stores
Stained gless essmmbly
Start onery stores
82) Stations, bus. tallroad and taxi
Taxidemist
TatloP shops
(85) Telephone exchanges
Tobacco shops
(88) TouPtst tnfomatton centers
(89) To~ shops
(90) T~avel agentlos
(91) Ty~wrlter sales and rental and Incidental repa1~
~eddi ng chapel s
(94) tholesale ~stnesses ~th saplos on the pr~tses, ~t no~ to
tnclu~ storage
(95) Recycling co~le~Uon fadltt~es.
(96) (Delete)
(97) Gasoline service stations, not Including the concu~ent sale of
her and ~ne for off-praises consmpUon.
(98) Golf cart sales and service
(99) Hotels, resort hotels and motels
(ZOO) Day care centers
(ZOZ) Convenience sto~s. not Including the sale of motor .h~cle fuel.
Uses Permitted by Conditional Use Pemtt. The following uses are
pemitted provided a conditional use permit has been granted pursuant
to the provisions of Section 18.28 of this ordinance:
I}Automobile repair garages, body shops, spray painting shops
Automobile sales and rental agencies
3 Boat sales; rentals and services
(4) Car washes
Equi;xnent rental services, including retotillers, power mowers,
sanders, power saws, cenent end plaster mixers not exceeding 20
cubic feet in capacity and' other similar equipment.
(7) Heli ports
(8) Liquid petrolera 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
W
(%0) Sale, ~ntal,' rUatr, or ~onstratton of motorcycles, scooters or
motorbt kes of two horsepower or g~eater
(%%) Animal hospitals
(lZ) Sports and ~creattonal facilities, not ~nclu~ng motor-driven
vehicles end rt~ng academies, but tncludt~ archery ranges,
athletic .fie~, beaches, golf driving ranges, g.v~nastu~s,
mtntatu~ golf, parks, p~aygrounds, sports arenas, skating rinks,
stadt~s, and c~ercial sw~n~n~ng poo~s
(I3) T~e ~ecapptng
(I4) T~re sa~es and services, not ~ncludtng recapping
(%5) Tra~ler and POnt storage
(%~) Trave~ tra~le~, mobt~e~es and r~reattonel ~htc~es sa~es and
service
(17) Truck sales and servtces
(Z8) Trucks and tra~lers; the rental of trucks not over Z9,500 pounds
gross wetght, w~th body not to exceed 22 feet tn length fr~ the
back of the cab to the end of the body; and the rental of tra~lers
not exceeding ~ feet ~n w~dth or ZZ feet in length
(Ig) Underground bulk fuel storage
(Z0) (Deleted)
CZ%) All uses permitted in subsection (a) that have more than 200
square feet of outside storage of display of materia~s
(2~) Gasoline service stations, ~ith t~e concurrent sale of beer anca
~ne for off-prentses consgnptton.
(23) Convenience stores, including the sale of motor whicle fuel.
Accessor~ Uses Permitted. An accessory use to a permitted use ~s
allowed, provided the accessory use Is established on the sane ]or or
parcel of land, and is incidental to, and consistent ~th the character
of the permitted principal use, including but not limited to:
(1) L~mtted manufacturing, fabricating, processing, packaging,
treat1 ng and ~ nc~ dental storage re1 ated thereto, provi ded any
such activity shall be ~n the see line of merchandise or service
as the trade or servtce bus~ness conducted on the pr~ntses and
provto~ng any such related acttv~t~ does nat exceed any of the
fol 1 o~ ng restrtctlons:
a. The maximum gross floor area of the butler rig permitted to be
devoted to such accessory use shall be ZS percent.
b. The maximum total horsepower of all electFie motors used in
connection ~tth such accessory use shall be S horsepower.
c. The accessory use shall be so conducted that noise,
v~bratlon, dust, odor, and all other objectionable factors
sha31 be ~educed to the extent that there ~11 be no
annoyance to persons outside the praises. Such accessory
use shall be located not nearer than 50 feet to any
res~ eenM el zone.
d. Accessory'uses shall be conducted Nholly ~th~n a cmpletely
enclosed but1 ~ng.
d, Any use that is not spec~fica11~ listed tn Subsections a. and b. may be
considered a permitted or con~tlonally permitted use provided that the
76
ATTACHMENT NO, 4
EXHIBITS
~:~TAFFRP~TIpA94.PC 1111/94 klb 14
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
CITY OF TEMECULA
LM
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - C-P~S SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - N-C NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
CASE N0. - PA94.-0071, SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 226
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 7, 1994
R:%S"fAFFgI'T%71PA~4.l>C 10/31/94 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
MARGARITA ROAD
I
LEGEND
NO~S
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
®
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
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR JULY 1, 1991
PLOT
COI~ISSION MINUTE8
UUbY 1, 1991
Pr,,~N NO. 226 (pp226)
Proposal to construct a commercial retail complex of
3 structures totaling 27,150 +/- square feet on a 2.5
+/- acre site. Located at the southwesterly corner of
Pauba and Margarita Road.
CHARLES RAY provided the staff report.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at
7:00 P.M.
KEITH MCCANN, 43121 Margarita Road, Temecula, applicant,
provided the Commission with a brief description of the
project and answered various questions by the Commission.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF suggested that the applicant move the
the trash enclosure adjacent to Building C to the left.
Mr. Chiniaeff also stated that he had concerns with the
elevations, and suggested that the applicant might work
with staff to get the back of Building C to look more
like the front.
The applicant indicated that he could address both these
issues with staff.
COMMISSIONER FORD asked if the applicant had any problem
moving the requirements for Conditions of Approval Nos.
66 and 67 to prior to the building permits be issued.
The applicant indicated that they intend to do the street
improvements first.
ART PELRA, 43185 Margarita Road, Temecule, stated that
when he purchased his property, he thought that it was
all zoned R-R and spoke in opposition to the project. He
stated that although the proposed tenants sounded good, he
expressed a concern for the control of future tenants.
KEITH MCCANN stated that when Mr. Pelka purchased his
property, the commercial zoning was already in place for
the proposed project.
Gi~Y THORNHILL commented that the CPS zoning controls what
type of tenants can occupy the property.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF questioned the City Attorney on the
Commission's options for controling the uses.
PCMINT/01/91
~4- July 5, 1991
pT.11S, I~IN(3 COMMIB Jq ION MINUTES
k~TLY 1, 1991
Lois Bobak indicated that the Commission could initiate
a process to change the zone or initiate a process to
change individual requirements within the zone.
CHAIRMAN CHINIAEFF expressed a concern for the steephess
of the 1.1 slope, the architectural treatment to the rear
of the buildings and recommended that staff review the
landscape plans and upgrade from one to five gallon
plants.
COMMISSIONER FORD also expressed a concern for the 1.1
slope.
GARY THORNHILL questioned if there was any concern for the
site lay-out.
CHAIPJiKN CHINIAEFF indicated a concern for siting of
Building B and it's relationship to the adjacent
commercial property. COMMISSIONER FORD stated that staff
should look at the shared access between the two adjacent
commercial parcels referenced.
COMMISSIONER FORD moved to continue Plot Plan No. 226 to
August 5, 1991, to allow the applicant to work with staff
to address the Conunission's concerns, seconded by
COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Noagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
· VARIANCE NO. 6
Proposal for a Variance in order to allow an addi ' al
eestanding sign display in lieu of the maxi allowed
fr tanding signs per Ordinance 348.
Continue the meeting of Augus , 1991.
S. TENTATIVE TRACT 25277 ~ND CHANGE 5724
8.1 Proposal to om R-R to R-l, single
family r 02 residential lots
a~d southwesterly
~CMIN7/01/91 -5- July 5, 199.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR AUGUST 5, 1991
as moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissio ahey
to h one meeting September 16, 1991. The motion vv nanimously
carried. .
2. Minutes
2.1 Approval of minutes o , 1991 Planning Commission Meeting.
it was moved by r Fahey seconded by Commissioner
Chiniaeff es. The motion was
unanimo
2.3 ission Meeting.
'oner Blair to
d
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3. PLOT PLAN NO. 226 (PP226)
Proposal to construct a commercial retail complex of 3 structures totaling
27,150 +/- square feet on 2.5 +/- Acre site.
Steve Jiannino provided the staff report. He commented that DRC committee
approved projects with a change to Condition #12, before next to las~ sentence
add "including slopes maintained to the satisfaction of Planning Director."
Chairman Hoagland opened the public hearing at 6:45 PM.
Bob Righeffi, Engineering Department addressed grading issues, including I to
I slopes, drainage and slope stability. Engineering has met with project
engineer and they are satisfied stability and drainage issues have been solved.
Commissioner Chiniaeff discussed 1 to I slope stability concerns, and proper
landscaping. Would like more trees on around backside of project.
Bob Righetti said stones were for erosion control and said there was an
agreement between Mesa Homes and Sam McCann to work out issues before
rainy season and there would be no open pipe by October, 1991.
Commissioner Ford asked if any off site improvements were needed.
Bob Righetti said no, none.
Ibzl~Min~OBOSgI 2
Commissioner Fahey, Commissioner Chiniaeff and Commissioner Ford met
with applicant to discuss changes for increased stability and landscaping.
Keith L. McCann, Jr. 43121 Margarita, Temecuia
representing applicant presented picture of a Mirafled slope (fabric)
to Commission and introduced his engineer to answer questions the Planning
Commissioners might have.
Tod Brenner 4685 McArthur Ct, Newport Beach, representing applicant gave
report on storm drains, stones etc.
Chairman Hoagland closed public comment at 6:55 PM.
Commissioner Chiniaeff still expressed concerns for more trees and the 1 to 1
slopes.
Commissioner Fahey asked Gary Thornhill if the project could be conditioned
for trees and shrubs.
Gary Thornhill said it could be conditioned prior to issuance of building permits.
Commissioner Ford would like trees at base of slope and applicant was directed
to work with staff on the landscaping concerns and modify Condition #11 to
add sentence "landscaping plans shall include enhancement along the base and
top of slopes for increased screening,"
Commission Ford made a motion seconded by Commissioner Fahey to:
3.1 Close public hearing
3.2 Adopt a negative declaration for Plot Plan 226; and
3.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 91-71
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 226 TO
CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL RETAIL COMPLEX OF 3
STRUCTURES TOTALING 27, 150 +/- SQUARE FEET ON A
PARCEL CONTAINING 2.53 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF MARGARITA AND
PAUBA ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 945-110-003.
3
The motion was ~:arried by the following vote:
AYES 5
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 15rrENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 26488
ge from R-A 2-1/2 (Residential-Agricultural 1-1/2 acre
to R-1-1 (Single Family Residential, 1 acre minimum
~sions of 4.5 +/- acres into 4 parcels. Project is
Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos.
indicated a conflict of interest an~
Col
6:59.
COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland
The staff report
Commissioner Hoa
area. Steve J
consistent with SWAP.
the panel
~arcel
and
sterly
~resented by Steve Jianninc mmended approval.
zestioned changing one acre parcels in a 2-1/2 acre
~formed the that the zoning is
a
at 7:00.
~id he will provide all weather access
if commission desired.
Chairman Hoagland opened
Applicant Jay Vanderwal,
said he would add homes onl,
Nelson Bentoncourt,408," Calle Medusa, Te ecula spoke in favor of the
project because Calle C ~os was being paved.
Commissioner For sked if homes only, no mobi could be added to
conditions. Gary ornhill advised it could be in CC&R' nly.
Terry Kaufma , representative, Assistant City Attorney, co irmed it was a
private ma r, the City could not condition it.
It was rioned by Commissioner Fahey to close the Public Hearin at 7:10
and;
eclarat~on
· · . ;
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
Ib/PCMin/080591 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
4.
SEPTEMBER 20.1993
PA93-0137 First Extension of Time for Plot Ran No. 226
Proposed commercial retail complex of three structures totaling approximately 27,150
square feet located'at the southwest corner of Margarita Road and Pauba Road.
Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. He advised that conditions
relevant to NPDES (erosion control) have been added to the Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Chiniaeff asked staff if there are conditions of approval to assure the
drainage off this property will be handled properly.
Principal Engineer Ray Casey advised the Conditions of Approval require that a
drainage study be submitted and approved.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Chiniaeff to re-
Affirm the previously adopted Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 226 and approve
PA 93-0137, Plot Plan No. 226, First Extension of Time subject to Conditions of
Approval.
The motion was unanimously carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PA93-0154 Second Extension of Time For Tentative Tract MaD No. 3a~3,
mendment No. 1 '
Propos ub-division of 14.37 acres into 11 residential lots Io ed on the north side
of Santiago d, approximately 1500 feet west of Ave * de San Pasqual.
Assistant Planner Cra~ iz presented the staf port. He advised that conditions
relevant to NPDES (erosion trol) have added to the Conditions of Approval.
Planner Ruiz said Condition of ~, o. 2, refers to Ordinance 348 twice, and
should be amended to read Ord' .
it was moved by Co ommissioner Fahey to re-affirm
the previously a ' e Tract Map No. 23513,
Amendmen 93-0154, Tentative
bject to
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AUGUST 5, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Planning Commissioners
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
August 5, 1991
Plot Plan No. 226, Pauba and Margarita Commercial Center,
Amendment No. 1
On July 1, 1991, the City Planning Commission continued the public hearing for Plot
Plan No. 226 to their regularly scheduled hearing of August 5, 1991. In their
deliberation of the project prior to the motion for continuance, the Commission
expressed concern regarding four primary issues as listed below. Following each
issue identified by the Commission is a summary statement of the appilcant's response
to that issue.
ISSUE 1:
Provide additional information clarifying proposed gradientsJ slope work
and adjacent off-site drainage improvements affecting the project site's
southerly slope. Specifically, indicate how the proposed 1:1 slope will
be constructed and landscaped. Demonstrate slope stability as well as
slope aesthetics. Also provide details on how this proposed slope will
interface with the planned 51~" R.C.P. drainage outlet to be sited
immediately adjacent and to the south.
RESPONSE 1:
a) The applicant, project architect and project engineer met
with City Staff on Wednesday, July 10, 1991, to discuss details
of proposed gradients and slope stabilization technologies. As
described by the applicant, the overall intent of the slope
construction methodology proposed is to allow development of the
property in an economically feasible manner, while eliminating
the need for large scale retaining wall structures along the
project site's southerly property line. In the course of ensuing
discussions, the applicant has demonstrated the structural
feasibility of the slope proposed to the satisfaction of the Public
Works Department, and has clarified how the slope is to be
landscaped subsequent to construction. The slope stabilization
methodology proposed is as described graphically and narratively
in Exhibit M-1. Landscaping of this slope is to be achieved
utilizing a hydroseed technique employing drought tolerant
ground cover mix as described below:
The following information is provided to dascrlbe in greater
detail the intended landscape treatment of the 1: 1 slope behind
Building "C" of Plot Plan No. 226.
A: PP226. MEM
C!ty Planning Commissioners
.~ugust 5, 1991
Page 2
The intended plant material used on the slope will be low growing
with characteristics of spreading and self-propagatlon. The
ultimate selection of plant material will depend upon lowest need
for irrigation and actual need for maintenance involving human
presence on the slope itself. The objectives of ptant selectlon for
the 1:1 slope are: a) Erosion protection/control; b) drought
tolerance/low irrigation requirements; c) low
upkeep/maintenance requirements; d) aesthetic enhancement.
Three types of plants meeting these objectives are recommended:
Creel~ing Saltbush (Atrilolex semibaccata ) is a naturalized
Iow-growlng, spreading perennial groundcover with small,
simple gray-green leaves which will form a dense mat.
Atriplex semibaccata will reach about six to eight inches in
height and spread two to five feet.
Atriplex semibaccata has proven to be an easy to establish
drought-tolerant and fire-resistant groundcover for both
coastal and inland environments, It adapts to most soil
types and has a deep root system that provides excellent
soil stabilization. It is easily established with minimal
irrigation or rainfall.
Creeping Saltbush is tolerant of a wide range of soil
conditions including alkalinity and salt. Atriplex
semibaccata grows without supplemental irrigation.
This plant is suggested for its prolific root structure.
Zorro Annual Feecue (Vulpia myuros). Zorro is a short,
aggressive, early-maturing, cool season, annual grass
with many fibrous roots. It has excellent seeding vigor,
and emerges in full very soon after the first rain. It
matures to seed earlier than most annual grasses, assuring
perpetuation. I~ can tolerate many soil problems including
acidity, serpentine, and low fertility.
Due to its exceptional seeding vigor and early growth,
Zorro is an excellent choice for obtaining fast cover with
minimal seedbed preparation and survives with as tittle as
ten inches of annual rainfall.
A:PP226.MEM
City Planning CommiSsioners
August 5, 1991
Page 3
Zorro has the best root-to-shoot growth ratios of all the
popular revegetation species. This means that a great
percentage of its total dry weight occurs in the form of
fibrous roots. These roots provide the optimum in soil
retention. At the same time, the wispy top growth of
Zorro allows sunlight to penetrate the soll - encouraging
the re-establishment of surrounding native species.
This plant is suggested for its cover capability and
variety.
Plantain (Plantaqo isularis). Plantain is a spreading
annual plant with slender leaves emanating near the
ground level with flowers upon slender stems. This plant
will grow six to ten inches and spread six to twelve
inches.
This native plant grown generally along the Southern
California coast and inland to desert slopes including
Death Valley, and is recommended for its quick growth and
low water requirements.
Plantain disappears after flowering but is recommended for
quick erosion control.
All of these plants may be seeded on the proposed 1:1 slope by
hydroseeding application. They are deep rooting, require less
water, and may be applied to the entire slope at one time.
Additional flowering plant seed may be added to the slope once
the suggested erosion control planting mix has become
established.
As regards to drainage improvements along the project site~s
southerly boundary, the proposed drainage outlet structure( s )
will be incorporated within the design of the planned slope
discussed above. Preliminary drainage improvement plans have
been reviewed by, and are conceptually acceptable to, the City
Public Works Department.
A :PP226.MEM
City Planning Commis-~ioners
August 5, 1991
Page ~,
ISSUE 2:
Rear facing architectural facades of proposed Buildings "B" and
should incorporate design aspects exhibited on the project~s street
frontage exposures, e.g., provide additional arch relief(s) and
continue tower element treatments to include southerly and westerly
tower faces.
RESPONSE 2:
a) Additional facade relief features, i,e., shaded archways,
are incorporated in the rear elevations of proposed Buildings
and "C". Fully articulated roof lines of tower elements for all
structures is also proposed, Reference Exhibit M-2.
ISSUE 3:
Realizing the significance of the project slte~s major street intersection
location, provide additional site enhancement features, e.g., further
berming of landscaped street frontages, widen frontage landscaping
and provide defined pedestrian walkway features accessing the site.
RESPONSE3:
a) The applicant proposes a meandering walkway along the
project sirens Margarita Road frontage, providing defined
pedestrian access, additional visual interest and opportunities
for landscape enhancement and variation as indicated in Exhibit
M-3. Widening of this landscaped area is also realized by 9 minor
westerly shift in proposed structural sitings. Areas of stamped
concrete paving provide further visual and textural
enhancement. Reference also Exhibit M-3.
ISSUE
Additional, significant landscaping appears appropriate as buffering
and project site definition element(s) along the proposalts southerly and
westerly property lines.
RESPONSE
a) Plant sizings have been increased along the project site~s
westerly property line. Hydroseeding of the southerly facing
slope is proposed as referenced in item No. 1, above. See also
Exhibit M-3.
In summary, Staff finds the revisions proposed an acceptable response to the
Commission~s concerns enumerated above, and recommends the City Planning
Commission approve the amendments proposed. Staff further recommends that the
City Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 226, Amendment No.
1; and
ADOPT Resolution 91- approving Plot Plan No. 226, Amendment No.
1, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
A: PP226. MEM
City Planning CommiSsioners
August 5, 1991
Page 5
Minutes of the July 1, 1991 Planning Commission hearing for this item as well as the
original Staff Report are included for clarification and reference.
CR:ks
A: PP226. MEM
City Planning CommiSsioners
August 5, 1991
Page 6
PLOT PLAN NO. 226:
EXHIBIT M-1
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED GRADING/SLOPE STABILIZATION
A significant portion of the subject site is depressed below the level of Margarita and
Pauba Roads. in preparing plans to maximize potential building pad area(s) at the
southerly portion of the site, it was noted that a standard 2:1 slope could be
employed, utilizing accepted engineering and grading slope stabilization technology,
and construction methods. However, if buildings were to be sited as planned, and
standard slope construction methods were utilized, a large retaining wall in excess
of 18 feet in height would necessarily result at the toe of the proposed slope. This
retaining wall would be a significant structure both visually and in its importance as
the only protection for the slope behind Building "C" . An alternate solutlon was
sought to reduce the size of the wall and insure greater slope stability. A 1:1 slope
was examined. t See the plate: "Comparison of 1:1 and 2:1 Slopes".
The proposed 1: 1 slope will significantly reduce the height of the required retaining
wall referenced previously. However, a slope steeper than 2:1 requires some
structural support to protect it from sliding failure. |See plate: "1:1 Slope
Unreinforced"), the unrelnforced 1:1 slope will place active earth pressure on the
back of a retaining wall and have a fairly small failure surface close to the slope
which may be unstable. The objective of current civil engineering planning is to
push the potential failure surface further into the soil behind the slope where it is
less likely to slide. This is represented by the dashed line.
One method of reinforcing a 1:1 slope is to employ a geogrid material within the soil
mass. This grid does for common soil what placing sand in bags does. The sand will
not stand alone, but when placed in bags it can be stacked. The geocJrld will
provide the following benefits:
Push the potential failure surface back where it possesses a higher
factor of safety against sliding.
Remove active earth pressure from the wall at the base. in fact the wall
will act as nothing more than a facing; providing in this case, armor
against flowing water adjacent to the site.
Lessen the required wall height at the toe of slope and thus reduce its
visual impact.
Provide a slope which is not dependent upon the wall at its base,
thereby reducing the structural importance of a large wall which may
experience intermittent minor failures over the life of the project- lSee
the last plate: "1:1 Slope Reinforced". )
CR/GT:ks
A: PP226. MEM
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT - JULY 1, 1994
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 1, 1991
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 226 (PP 226)
Prepared By: Charles Ray
Recommendation:
The Planning Department Staff
recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration
for Plot Plan No. 226; and
ADOPT Resolution 91-
approving Plot Plan No. 226;
based on the analysis and findings
contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
A: PP226
Mr. Sam McCann
Beck-Moffet Associates
Request to construct a commercial retail complex of
3 single-story structures totaling 27,150+/- square
feet on a 2.5+/- acre site.
Southeasterly corner of Pauba and Margarita Roads.
C-P-S
(Scenic Highway Commercial)
North: R -R
South: R -R
East: SP
West: C-P-S
( Rural Residential)
( Rural Residential)
( Specific Plan - Margarita
Village- Residential)
(Scenic Highway
Commercial )
C-P-S
{no change proposed in conjunction
with this project)
Vacant rscrubbed (evidence of previous land fill
activities )
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant, Natural Vegetation
Vacant, Natural Flood/Drainage Channel
Specific Plan Residential Uses/Under
Construction
Vacant/Disturbed Vegetation
Site Area:
Buildin9 Area:
3.u,5 acres {gross)(150,282 sq.ft. )
2.53 acres (net)ill0,206.8 sq.ft.)
Building "A" 3,110+/- sq.ft.
Building "B" 12,410+/- sq.ft.
Building "C" 11,630+/- sq.ft.
Total 27,150+/- sq.ft.
Building Coverage/
Net Site Area:
Parking Provided:
2~,. 6%
Automobile Spaces: 135
Loading Zones: 3
Bicycle Racks: 9
Plot Plan No. 226 was submitted to the City of
Temecula Planning Department on March 6, 1991.
The proposal was considered by the City
Development Review Committee (DRC) on a
preliminary basis on April 11, 1991. Primary
design/informational issues identified by the City
DRC at that time were as follows:
Additional landscaping adjacent to, and
architectural articulation of, southerly and
easterly facing building elevation was
requested in order to mitigate the visual
impacts of the initial design of these
structures.
Proposed landscaping and parking lot
shading, as originally submitted, was
insufficient in area coverage as specified by
City ordinance. Compliance with adopted
planting standards and schedules was
requested.
Minor architectural features such as utility
fixture/trash enclosure should incorporate
building materials similar to those proposed
for the project's primary structures.
Articulated landscape betruing ( minimum of 3
feet in height) was requested as a means of
street scene enhancement along the project's
Pauba and Margarita Road frontages.
A: PP226 2
Further identification and enhancement of
project entrances was suggested. Possible
design elements accomplishing this might
include textured pavers in, and placement of,
large boulders or landscape planters adjacent
to the project site entrances.
The City Engineer requested additional
information and detail regarding proposed
grading and drainage improvements.
Further, proposed building "C" as originally
designed did not provide adequate rear areas
for pedestrian ingressJegress to this
structure~s rear doorways initially proposed.
This latter concern was reiterated by the
DRC~s Riverside County Fire Department
representative.
A site specific traffic study was deemed
necessary in order to identify project traffic
impacts and appropriate mitigation.
Minor driveway and parking reconfiguration/
redesign was requested. The initially
proposed drive width improvements accessing
Pauba Road were considered inadequate and
were specified by the City Transportation
Engineer to be 30 feet minimum width with full
improvements.
Additionally, it was suggested that the
applicant reconsider proposed locations of
loading zones and handicap ac~-=~ible
parking spaces, minimizing potential internal
site traffic circulation conflicts.
Riverside County Fire Department concerns
generally focused on proper site circulation
and access requirements for emergency
vehicles. Specifically, the drive accessing
Pauba Road was specified to be fully
improved as referenced in #8 above.
Further, the proposed openings at the rear
of Building ~C" would require not only wider
pedestrian access, but full-width
improvements allowing for ingress/egress by
emergency vehicles as well. Alternatively, it
was suggested proposed rear door openings
be removed.
A: PP226 3
ANALYSIS:
Applicant responses, including proposed design
solutions to the above referenced issues are
contained in the following project analysis,
Land Use and Architectural Coml~atibility
The proposed use is identified as one of those
allowed under the subject siteis current zonin9
designation of Scenic Highway - Commercial ( C-P-S )
( Reference Exhibit B ). Further, as the
surrounding properties are currently vacant, the
City has the opportunity to ensure compatibility of
this projectis architectural design with future
development through architectural review of
additional projects which may eventually be
constructed in the vicinity of Plot Plan No. 226.
Materials and design elements proposed by the
applicant are considered compatible with the design
guidelines currently observed by the City. As
such, the project is considered compatible with
current development standards and ordinances
affecting the proposal site and neighboring
properties.
Proposed landscaping as currently indicated
provides additional aesthetic enhancement to the
site and adjacent street. Planting and irrigation
schemes are in keeping with City policies regarding
water conservation and use of drought-tolerant
vegetative species. Installation of proposed
landscaping will be secured by means of bonding
adequate to cover costs of landscape installation
plus one (1) year maintenance. Actual installation
time( s ) of proposed landscaping is contingent upon
weather conditions and irrigation water availability.
Site Access
The site is currently accessible by Margarita and
Pauba Roads, both of which will be improved to
their designed half-wldth standards adjacent to this
proposal as a condition of project approval
(reference PP 226, Conditions of Approval
Attachment No. 3).
Project related traffic impacts as documented by the
traffic study submitted by the applicant, are
mitigated by signalizatlon and public facilities fees,
also specified in the attached Conditions of
Approval. ( Reference also Attachment No. 5 - "Fee
Checklist". )
A: PP226 u,
Access into the site proper is provided by 2, two-
way drives, one each accessin9 adjacent road
frontages. As revised, the Pauba Road drive
access will be improved to its full design width of 30
feet. The location of this drive, which is bisected
by the project site's westerly property line, also
provides for shared access to anticipated commercial
development immediately to the west, thereby
reducing exit/entrance trips between sites utilizin9 '
Pauba Road as their primary access.
Parkincl and On-Site Circulation
Current auto and bicycle parking ratios planned for
this proposal are considered adequate to support
parking demands based on the variety of allowable
occupancies. Significant change in proposed
occupancies will mandate site/user-specific parking
demand analyses with corresponding modifications
to vehicle parking provisions if deemed necessary.
The applicant has also incorporated design
allowances facilitating future shared access between
the property in question and the westerly adjacent
parcel as discussed previously. Shared access is
graphically portrayed in Exhibit D. Proposed
easement documentation/agreements and drive
construction plans for this site access point have
been reviewed by the City Engineering Department
and are considered acceptable.
Alternative trash enclosure and loading zone
locations which might facilitate traffic circulation
within the project site were also investigated by the
applicant. The loading zone and enclosure locations
currently indicated by Exhibit D are considered
appropriate by the proposaPs prospective tenants
as well as the affected trash pick-up service and the
City Engineering Department.
Access to the rear of proposed Building "C", as
revised, allows for adequate emergency vehicle
response capabilities as required by the Riverside
County Fire Department. As a corollary,
pedestrian access at the rear of this building has
also been redeslgned to eliminate potential conflicts
with rear door openings. Guard railings indicated
along the walkway at the rear of the structure
reduce the possibility of accidental falls down the
abutting slope to the north. Railings as designed
are in accordance with applicable City and Uniform
Building Code Standards.
A:PP226 5
GENERAL PLAN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
Gradinq and Drainaqe
As redesigned and specified, proposed on-site
drainage improvements are considered adequate to
convey 100 year storm discharge volumes. Design
modifications initiated by the applicant also included
relocation and redesign of proposed off-site
drainage structures adjacent to the northerly
property boundary of the subject site.
Changes in the project's original grading plans, as
initiated by the applicant, included a significant
gradient ratio increase ( 2: 1 originally proposed vs.
1:1 currently indicated) in the site~s northerly
facing slope. The proposed change is realized
primarily through incorporation of recently
available slope stabilization technology commonly
known as "Mirafi". As a result of the increased
slope stabilization achieved through use of this
material, the retaining wall indicated at the toe of
the slope referenced has been reduced in scale from
a maximum height originally planned at
approximately 16~+/- to that currently indicated of
approximately 3'-6'. Scale reduction in the
proposed retaining wall lessens overall project
visual impacts, often associated with construction of
massive retaining walls. Specifications of materials
and construction methodologies proposed have been
reviewed by the City Engineering Department and
are considered appropriate for this projectJs design
requirements. Easements allowing for construction
and maintenance of all proposed off-site grading
and drainage improvements, acceptable in content
and format to the City Engineer, will be secured by
the applicant prior to issuance of grading/building
permits.
The project, as proposed, conforms with existing
zoning ordinances affecting the subject property,
and is compatible with Southwest Area Plan {SWAP)
land use recommendations for the site (Reference
Exhibit C) . As discussed previously, the proposal
is also compatible with existing and anticipated
development in its immediate vicinity. As such, it
is likely Plot Plan No. 226 will be consistent with the
Cityis General Plan recommendations for the
property in question, upon the Planis final
adoption.
A: PP226
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
Pursuant to applicable portions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial
Environmental Assessment was prepared for Plot
Plan No. 226, Based on findings contained in that
assessment, it was determined the project in
question will not have a significant impact on the
built or natural environment; a Negative Declaration
of potential environmental impacts is recommended
for adoption.
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 226 will be consistent with the Cityts
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State taw. The project, as proposed,
conforms with existing applicable city zoning
and development ordinances. Further, the
proposal is characteristic of similar
development approved by the City to date.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference with
the City~s future General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan. The project is of insignificant scale
in context of the broad goals and directires
anticipated in the City~s General Plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws. Reference
local Ordinances No. 30,8, 0,60; and California
Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009
tPlanning and Zoning Law).
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
Adequate site circulation, parking, and
landscaping are provided, as well as
sufficient area to appropriately construct the
proposed structures, Reference Exhibits D
and E.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare. Reference the proposal~s Initial
Environmental Assessment, (Attachment No.
3), and project Conditions of Approval
I Attachment No. 2 ).
A: PP226 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area. The project
conforms with applicable land use and
development regulations and reflects design
elements currently existing within the City.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic. The project
draws access from both Margarita and Pauba
Roads, dedicated City rights-of-way, which
will be improved to realize their respective
ultimate design configurations as a project
Condition of Approval. Project access, as
designed, conforms with applicable City
Engineering standards and ordinances,
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely effect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study
performed for this project. Reference the
attached Initial Environmental Study and
Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 226.
The design of the project together with the
type of supporting improvements are such
that they are not in conflict with easements
for access through, or use of the property
within the proposed project. Reference the
proposed site design in the context of the
approved, underlying parcel map
configuration, Exhibits D and H respectively.
10.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents-
associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference. Supporting
documentation is attached.
The P lanni ng Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Plot Plan No. 226, and
ADOPT Resolution 91-~ approving
Plot Plan No. 226; based on the
analysis and findings contained in
the Staff Report and subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
A: PP226 8
CR:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
5.
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. SWAP Recommended Land Use
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. Elevations
G. Floor Plans
H. Parcel Map No. 8b,55
1. 1. Color Exterior
2. Materials Samples
Fee Check List
A: PP226 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVINC PLOT PLAN NO. 226 TO
CONSTRUCT A COMMERCIAL RETAIL COMPLEX OF 3
STRUCTURES TOTALING 27,150+/- SQUARE FEET ON A
PARCEL CONTAINING 2.53 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF MARGARITA AND
PAUBA ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NO.
945 - 110-003.
WHEREAS, Mr. Sam McCann filed Plot Plan No. 226 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plan on July 1, 1991, at which time interested persons had
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findin.qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
{ 1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan,
(2} The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
A:PP226
10
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the 9eneral plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
{b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
|1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
|2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving of
projects and taking other actions, including the issuance
of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
fol Iowi ng:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 226 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
A:PP226 11
D; ( 1 ) Pursuant to Section 18.30( c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
a)
The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with ~dl
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
b)
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.
{2) The Planning Commission, in approving of the
proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 226 will be consistent with the Cityts
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law. The project, as proposed,
conforms with existing applicable city zoning
and development ordinances. Further, the
proposal is characteristic of similar
development approved by the City to date.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference with
the City~s future General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan. The project is of insignificant scale
in context of the broad goals and directives
anticipated in the City~s General Plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws. Reference
local Ordinances No. 3LI8, 460; and California
Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009
{Planning and Zoning Law).
d)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
Adequate site circulation, parking, and
landscaping are provided, as well as
sufficient area to appropriately construct the
proposed building, Reference Exhibits D and
E.
A:PP226 12
e)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare. Reference the proposaPs Initial
Environmental Assessment, ( Attachment No.
3), and project Conditions of Approval
I Attachment No. 2 ).
f)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area. The project
conforms with applicable land use and
development regulatlons and reflects design
aspects currently existing within the City.
g)
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic. The project
draws access from both Margarlta and Pauba
Roads, dedicated City rights-d-way, which
will be improved as necessary to realize their
respective ultimate design configurations.
Project access, as designed, conforms with
applicable City Engineering standards and
ordinances.
h)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study
performed for this project. Reference the
attached Initial Environmental Study and
Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 226.
The design of the project together with the
type of supporting improvements are such
that they are not in conflict with easements
for access through, or use of the property
within the proposed project. Reference the
proposed site design in the context of the
approved, underlying parcel map
configuration.
j)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein
incorporated by reference. Supporting
documentation is attached.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
A:PP226 13
SECTION 2. Environ'mental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment. there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. and a Negative Declaration.
therefore. is hereby granted.
SECTION 3_.~ Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 226 to construct a commercial retail compiex of three (3) structures totaling
27.150+/- square feet general ly located at the southwesterly corner of Margarita and
Pauba Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 9u,5-110-003 subject to the following
conditions:
A. Attachment No. 2. attached hereto.
SECTION
PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of July. 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
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 ~ day of . 1991 by the following vote of the
Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
A: PP226
li
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backclround
1. Name of Proponent:
Mr, Sam McCann
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
~,3121 Margarita Road
Temecula, CA 92390
{71~) 676-7~8~,
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
March 26, 1991
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Plot Plan No, 226 |PP 226)
6. Location of Proposal:
Southeasterly corner of Pauba and
Marqarita Roads
Environmental ImDacts
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheeta. )
Yes Maybe
No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcoverlng of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
A: PP226
26
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudstldes,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
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?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A: PP226
27
Yes Maybe No
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
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)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, 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?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A: PP226
28
10.
31.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
Y. es Maybe N_,9o
a. - Increases in existing noise levels? ~ X
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substance- {including,
but not limited to, oil, pestlcides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
X
X
X
X
.X
X
.X
X
A: PP226
29
Ye.._Es Maybe No
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
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?
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?
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 of 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 the following utilities:
a, Power or natural gas?
X
X
X
X
X
A:PP226
3O
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c.- Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f, Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe N__9o
X
X
X
X
X
×
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
A: PP226
31
+*
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental 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 cumu~
latively 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 substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? __
Yes Maybe No
X
X
A:PP226
32
III
Earth
1.a.
l.b.
1,C,
1.d.
1.f.
1.9.
Air
2.a,b,c.
Discussion of tl~e Environmental Evaluation
No. Construction is not proposed at depths sufficient to adversely
affect geologic substructures of the site, Unstable earth conditions
which might result from proposed cut/fill activities are mitigated by the
crib retaining wall extending along the siteis easterly property line.
Fill activities are subject to City material and compaction specifications.
Yes. Compaction and overcoverlng of soil is necessary to effect the
construction proposed, The limited sale of this proposal precludes any
significant impacts on regional topography or soil characteristics.
t the subject site and the property immediately
adjacent to the east. Gradient differentials are effected by a 2: 1 slope
downward from the subject property, supported by a crib retaining wall
approximately 10 feet high, Partial mitigation of the visual impacts of
this slope/wall are realized through slope landscaping. Visual impacts
affecting properties immediately adjacent are further mitigated by
architectural articulation of the proposalts opposing building facades.
No. No unique geologic or topographic features are evident on the
subject site.
No. Insignificant change in regional surface erosion can be expected
if this project is eventually realized, i.e., additional on-site structures
and paving will undoubtedly reduce erosion at the project site.
Resultant environmental impacts of additional off-site drainage are
nominal as mitigated by properly designed and constructed drainage
conveyances. | Reference City of Temecula Engineering Department
Conditions of Approval. )
No. No construction is proposed that would logically affect beach
sands; nor should the project produce deposition/erosion which may
modify stream channels or take beds.
No. The subject site is not offeL'ted by known earthquake, landslide,
mudslide or ground failure hazards. Further, all proposed
fill/compaction and substructures shall conform to applicable City and
Uniform Building Code standards.
No. Nominal addition of localized air pollutants may result from
increased auto traffic accessing the project site. Regional effects are
considered nominal, Nominal changes may result in the immediate
vicinity of the project site. Based on the scale of this proposal,
environmental effects are anticipated to be largely undatectable.
A: PP226
33
Water
3.a.
3.b.
3.c.
3.d,e.
3.f,g.
3.h.
3,i,
Plant Life
4.a-d.
Animal Life
5.a-c.
No. The proposed structure is not located within defined marine or
fresh water flows. No effect on these environmental asseta is
anticipated.
No. Currently permeable ground wil| be rendered impervious as a
result of this proposal. Consequently, surface runoff and absorption
rates on the project site itself may change. Site drainage shail conform
with plans approved by the City of Temecula. Necessary improvements
to effect proper site drainage shall be as indicated in the project
conditions of approval. No significant impacts are anticipated.
No. Plans proposed at this time indicate no adverse on or off site
flooding impacts. Proposed drainage plans and all related necessary
improvements shall be as specified by the City Engineering Department.
No. Increased runoff from the project site may nominally increase
surface levels and turbldity of off-site bodies of water. However, due
to the limited project scale proposed, this possibility is unlikely.
NO: Reduced permeation at the project site may eventually affect
underlying groundwater. Possible environmental alteration is unlikely,
as are negative impacts.
No, Water consumption rates typical of commercial projects is
proposed. All water consumption activities are subject to monitoring
and allowances specified by the applicable purveyor. Proposed
landscaping/irrigation shall respect current drought conditions
affecting the City as specified in the project Conditions of Approval.
No. Reference Item No. 3.c.
No. No quantities of native plants to speak of, are currently present
on, or in the vicinity of the subject site, including species identified as
"rare or endangered". Further, new species which may be introduced
as a result of required site landscaping cannot be considered invaslve
because of the referenced lack of on-site native varieties. Similarly.
no impacts are anticipated on agricultural assets.
No. Minor losses of small common urban species, e.g., small lizards,
insects, rodents, and their habitats may result from this project.
Numerically and qualitatively, these losses should be environmentally
insignificant. Further, if nat previously paid, the applicant is
required to submit Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat habitat procurement fees in
an amount specified by City ordinance. Such monies are to be used for
purchase of suitable habitat for the Kangaroo Rat as it is gradually
displaced due to generalized development of the Temecula Valiey. This
A: PP226
proposal :contributes incrementally to regional displacement of the
Kangaroo Rat.
Noise
Maybe.
No.
Minor increases in ambient noise levels may occur
subsequent to project implementation and commercial
occupancy of the project slte. Long term noise impacts will
be insignificant. Short term construction noise levels
generated may result in localized disturbance, self-
mitigated largely by normally conducting such activities
during daylight hours, Monday through Friday.
Liqht and Glare
No. While the project could potentially impact night skies, the proposal
is required to comply with applicable City/Palomar Observatory lighting
policies and ordinance(s), These policies and ordinances address
potential night-sky lighting impacts of development proposals that
might logically affect activities of the Mr. Palomar Astronomical
Observatory.
Land Use
No. The project is consistent with underlying land use ordinances and
Southwest Area Plan guidelines affecting the subject property. No
change in Land Use designations is proposed by the project; no
anticipated impacts.
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
No. The proposal is of limited scale and would not logically deplete
substantial renewable or non-renewable natural resources,
Risk of Ul~set
10.a,b.
No. The proposal does not entail storage or use of hazardous
s'~stances; nor is the subject site within a designated
emergency/evacuation plan movement corridor.
Pol3utation
11.
Housing
12.
No. The project does not contain population relocation elements,
No. No housing is proposed to be added nor deleted.
A:PP226
35
Transportation/Circtilation
13.a,c.
No. Commercial retail construction of relatively limited scale ( less than
30,000 square foot) is proposed, generating similarly limited amounts
of destination traffic. Further, the project is required to contribute
monies to area-wide, as well as localized public improvements (e.g,,
traffic impact mitigation) proportionate to the proposaPs anticipated
impacts.
13.b.
Yes. In compliance with City ordinance, the project is required to, and
does provide a total of 138 additional off-street, improved parking
spaces as referenced in the proposaPs Conditions of Approval
(attached) and indicated by Exhibit D.
13.d,
No. The project will attract additional traffic to the subject site upon
its implementation, Impacts are expected to be insignificant given the
proposalis limited scale. Reference also Item 13.a.
13.e.
No. The project is not in a location which would logically affect
waterborne, rail or air traffic, nor does it propose addition or deletion
of such facilities.
13 .f.
Maybe. Any increase in traffic naturally increases the possibility of
traffic accidents. Impacts are likely to be unnoticeable in view of the
proposaPs limited scope and proposed infrastructure improvements.
Public Services
l~.a~c.
Maybe. All new commercial development may generate at leaat nominal
increased demands for police and fire protection services, utility
provisions and, indirectiy, schools. Mitigation is realized through
assessment districts, property taxes, and similar funding mechanisms.
lu,.d.
Maybe. Construction is not proposed which would directly impact
schools or parks. However, the applicant is required by state law to
contribute applicable school fees as partial mitigation for secondary
impacts on school systems resulting from commercial development.
1Lke.
Yes. increases in road maintenance activities in the immediate vicinity
of the proposal will be required due to proportionate increases in
localized traffic generated. Mitigation of such impacts are as specified
by the City Engineering Department in the projectts Conditions of
Approval.
14.f.
No. Impacts on other governmental services have not been identified
at this time.
Enerqy
15.a,b. No. Reference Item Nos. 9.a. and b.
A:PP226 36
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. Nominal service line extensions/increased demands can be
expected for the utilities referenced. No significant impacts are
anticipated.
Human Health
17 .a,b.
No. The project does not include introduction of potential health ·
hazards to the region; nor are there existing health hazards identified
at the project site. Flood hazards affecting the site previous to
improvements proposed are mitigated by those improvements, including
overall elevation of the project site realized by planned fill activities.
Aesthetics
18.
No. The application has been reviewed for architectural compatibility
and complies with the City's applicable guidelines and standards in this
regard. Potential visual impacts of proposed grading and the
previously referenced crib reining wall are mitigated primarily
through landscaping of the project site as indicated by Exhibit F.
Recreation
19.
No. Additional recreational assets are not proposed, nor are they lobe
deleted in conjunction with this project; direct impacts on recreational
facilities are not anticipated.
Cultural Resources
No. Construction is not proposed that will legicaily effect known
archaeological religious or cultural assets; no identified impacts.
20.b.
No. The proposal is not within an identified historic
preservation/conservation district. As such, impacts on the existing
character of historic assets in the region are unlikely.
21 .a,b,
c,d.
No. Reference Item Nos. 1-20.
A: PP226
37
: 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 signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project,
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,
March 26, 1991
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
X
A:PP226 38
ATTACHMENT NO.
EXHIBITS
A:PP226 39
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
II
II
P.C. DATE
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
pku~,
( CITY OF TEMECULA ~
~' ..~" """""'k..--
.%
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
CASE NO.pr'J-'2.tt
~f:).C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
CASE WO-~;'f~2'3-/~'
p.C. DATE
.-CITY OF TEMECULA ~
CASE NO.
p,c. DaTE "7, l.,cii
~-' CITY OF TEMECULA )
:CITY OF TEMECULA ~
CASE N ·
FC. DATE 1.t'~t
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
CASE NO.
~.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
PARCFL MAP 8455
pARCEL
PARCEL
PARCEL
( ~-,~tffi,~r I,~.S,.t~)CASE NO. ta'Zz.
p.c. OATS
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 226
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
(Traffic Signal Mi~tigation)
Public Facility
( Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP}
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 25
N/A
Condition No. 57
Condition No. 5L~
N/A
Condition No. 82
Condition No. ~7
A: PP226
~0
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:XSTAFFRFI~71pA94.PC2 12/1/94
ATTACHNIENT NO. 7
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94--
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
TFIF. CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA94-0071, SECOND EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR PLOT PLAN NO 226 TO CONSTRUCT
COM1V~CIAL BUH.nlNGS TOTAI.ING 26,920 SQUARE
FEET ON A PARCI~J. CONTAINING 3.45 ACRES LOCATED
ON ~ SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF MARGARITA
ROAD AND PAUBA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO.945-110-003
WFIEP~_AS, Ted Zonos filed Planning Application No. Planning 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 referenee;
WltEllf. AS , Planning Application No. PA94-0071 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
Wltl~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;
WltEREAS, at the conclusion of the public hearing for planning Application No. PA94-
0071, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, ff any, of all persons deserving
to be heard, the Planning Director continued the hearing to the Planning Commission meeting
of November 7, 1994:
WltEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0071
on November 7, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by hw, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, 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 meeting
of December 5, 1994:
WltEREAS, 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;
R:x3TAFFR.PT~71PA94.PC2 I~/1/94 IrJb ll
NOW, Tm~RF.j~ORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THR CITY OF
TEMECUIA DOES R!~-qOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOI,I~)WS:
Section 1. That .the above recitations arc tree and correct.
Section 2. Findings. The planning Commi-~sion, in approving planning Application No.
PA94-0071 makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following
fmdings can be made:
1. The proposed use must conform to aH the Genenl Plan requirements end
with all applicable requirements of state law end City OrdinanCeS.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety end general weftare; conforms to the logical development of the land end
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property.
B. The planning Commi.~sion, in approving proposed planning Application No.
PA94-0071, makes the following specific findings, to wit:
1. The findings for the origlnnl approval for Plot Plan No. 226 end planning
Application No. PA93-0137, First Extension of Time are found to remain valid except as
amended heroin.
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 pmvions approval of this project.
3. Planning Application No. PA94-0071, Second Extension of Time for Plot
Plea No. 226 is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Neighborhood
Commercial. The size end 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 end conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or general weftare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria
prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.1 end 18.30.
5. The proposal will not have en adverse effect on surrounding property,
because the use does not x~-present a significant change to the present or planned land use of the
area.
6. The pwject is compatible with surrounding proposed land uses. The
harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, end coverage creates a compatible physical relationship
with adjoining properties.
R:XSTAFFRPT~71pA94.PC2 12/I/94 lab 12
7. The sin: is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation paRems, access, and 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 and proposed dedicated right-
of-ways which am open to, and am useable by, vehicular traffic as evidenced on the underlying
Tentative Parcel Map showing access to Pauba Road and Margafita Road.
9. Said fibdineS are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and heroin 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 Environmental
Quality Act, specificaily finds that the approval of this Conditional Use Permit will have a di
Enininlis impact on fish and wiJdllfe resources. The Planning Commission specifically finds that
in considering the record as a whole, the project involves no potepfial adverse effect, either
individually or cumuiatively, on wildlife as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and
Game Cede. This is based on the fact that this is located in an ulban area and is primafi]y infill
in nature. The Planning Commission further Finds that Ted Zonos is the project proponent and
the site is located on the southwesterly comer of Margafita 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 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 CODtalned in 14 Callfornin 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 ineasures described in
the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted.
R:~TAI~P~T~71PA~4.P~ 12/lt~ ~ 13
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula plnnning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. PA94-0071 to construct three commt~'cinl buildings totalling
26,920 squa~ feet located southwesterly comer of Margarita Road and Pauba Road and known
as Assessor's Parcel No~-945-110-003 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made
a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 5th day of December, 1994.
STEVEN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I t!ERRRy CERT~Y that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the plnnning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of
December, 1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONF_~:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORN/HI
SECRETARY
R:xSTAFFRPB71PA94.P~2 1~/I/9~ ~b 14
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~STAPFRPT~71PAN.I~'~ 12/1/94 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA94o0071, Second Extension of Time
Project Descdption: 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 (C-P-S) zone.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-110-003
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General ReQuirements
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.
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.
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.
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 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 permit~ee shall not, thereafter,
be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
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.
The applicant shall make application and pay all applicable fees for a Consistency
Check with the Department of Building and Safety Department.
R:~TAFFRI~71PAo,4.]~'2 1211/~4 k~ 1~
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 Margarita Road prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy.
14. The developer shall dedicate street lights to the City prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
OTHER AGENCIES
15. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Metropolitan
Water Department transmittal dated September 27, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
16. The applicant shall comply with the-recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control District transmittal dated November 10, 1994, a copy of which is
attached.
17. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated August 22, 1994, a copy of which is attached.
R:~TAPIrlLr~71pA94.1aC2 1211/94 I 17
MWD
METROPOLITAN WATER D/STRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Office of The General Manager
RECEIVED
sEP28L
Ans'd..-----_,
September 27, 1994
Mr. Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
.Notice of Public Hearing for
Pl~nnina ADDlication 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.
Z,Z: ::,::" 2 _~:~ A', v,_=, _ss inL',e es Cslifcrnis ,~.507~ · j,;ia!:::'-~ ascress: Ecx Ej 5,5-. _:s A!'~e!es. Ca:!;z':za ,~,:~.5:-7EE , ',e:.=,,~"-:~, 2' :' :"--'-::-:
Mr. Craig Ruiz
-2- September 27, 199f
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,
M. Kunysz
Manager, Environmental Affairs
Attacbaments
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
: WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
, 2CEIV D
N0v 5
Ladies and Gentlemen:
plan check city land use m, or Ixovtde STrum Dtvijor~ of I~J ESTSTe Immr~ or other flood h~b~td rtports for m~n m. Din, ict
comments/recommendations for such ~ n norrally limited to hems Of q~cifi¢ Imorem to me Dlsmct including District Master Drainage Ran
radiities, mr regional flood control end drainage fedlilies which could be considered · IogicaJ cernl:x:~ent or ml:~n of a mastar plen system,
and Distlict Area Drainage Plan fees (devdopment mitigation fees). In edition, Irdonnlinn of · general nature is provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the tdlowing shedrod comments do not In any way constitute or imply District
approvsi or enclarsement Of the proposed project wffiq respect to flood hazed, IxJbilc heaiffi and safety or 8ny othm' ~ issue:
[~l/'This project would not be impacted by DtatriOf Master D'alnage Plen fadlltlas nor k'g other facilities Of regional interest
F']This project involves District Master Ren facilities. The District will accept ownership Of ma:h facilYdes on wHIten request Of the City. Facilities
must be eonstnjcted to District standards. and Disaiof pen check and inspection will be required for Disffict _m'z:,~eptanoe. p~en check,
inspection and edminist~atlve fees will be required.
'~ This project ;xoposes channels, storm drains 36 inche$ or larger in ,"arnetor, or other fadlffies that ccutd be considered regional in nature
and/or a logice· extenmon Of the adopted Master Drainage Ran. The Dist~CT would consider
ownership Of such fadlilies on writton request Of the CIty. Facilities must be coP41~u~ed to District stifflards, and District plan i and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Ren Check, inspection and apminis~mive fees will be required.
~This project is located within the limits Of the Dictdcfs Ate· Drainage Ran for which drainage
fees have been apQpted; applicable f~es Wnould be paid to the Rood Corm, ol Dis'6.i,'~ or City prior to final approval of the pro~ect. or in the case
Of a parcel map or subdivision prior to issuance of building or grading penttits. Fees to be paid should be at the rste in effect at ~e time Of
i.~uance Of ~e actual permit.
GFNFRAI INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Bimlnation System (NPDES) peffnit from the STate Water Re~orces P.,onlTol Board.
Clearance for grading, recordmion, or other final approval, should not be given until the City has beteffffined that ~e project has been granted a
bermtl or is shown to be exempt.
If this project inv(~ves 8 Federa· Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City Ihould require the applicant to
provide all studies, calculation. s, pmns end other Information required to meet FEMA requirement, end ehould torlher require that tw applicant
obtsin a Conditional Letter Of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior TO grading, reoxdmion or other final approve· Of ~e project, and · Letter of Map
Revision (LOMR) Ixior to
If a nsturaJ watercourse or rnlpped flood plain is impaled by this project the City should require Itte applicant to obtain · Section 16Ol11603
Agresmentfr~mtheCa~miaDe~ofRshindGame8nd~CJeanWsterActSec~i~n4~4pemmfr~mtwU~S.AnnyC~n:~sOf
Engineers, or written correspondence from tt*,e~e agencies indicating the I~ect is exempt f~rn these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section
401 Water QuaJity Cerlfficatlon may be required from the loci California Regionl Water Quailty Control Board ptior to issuance Of ~e Corps
404 permit.
Ve~/Iz~lyyours,
Wa r
August 22, 1994
RECEIVED
AU6 2 i
Mr. Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula
planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
Water Availability
Parcel Map 8455, Parcel No. 4
PA 94-0071, Second Extension of Time
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District CRCWD). 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 fights, ff any, to RCWD.
ff you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
S8:SD:mg112/F186
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA93-0137, Plot Plan No. 226, First Extension of Time
Project Description: First one-year extension of time for Plot Plan No. 226, the
construction of three commercial retail buildings totaling 26,920 square feet on
a 3.45 parcel in the Scenic Highway Tourist Commercial (C-P-S) zone.
AsseSsor's Parcel No.: 945-110-O03
Approval Date: September 20, 1993
Expiration Date: August 5, 1994
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Reouirements
PA93-0137, Plot Plan No. 226, First Extension of' Time shall comply with all
Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 226 (copies of which are a~ached) unless
superseded by these Conditions of Approval.
The project shall comply with the all the requirements of Ordinance 348, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Planning Law and CiD/Ordinance No. 348, upon written
request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
Prior to the Issuance of Buildina Permits
The applicant shall make an application for a consistency check with the Department
of Building and Safety and shall pay the appropriate filing fee, The applicant shall pay
the appropriate Landscape Inspection Fee to the Building and Safety Department.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and irrigation Plans consistent with the
approved Conceptual Landscape Plans shall be submined to the Building and Safety
Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.
Performance securities, in the amount equal to the total cost of landscaping and
irrigation including labor and material to guarantee adequate maintenance of the
landscaping for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning.
The applicant shall provide additional landscaping to screen various components of the
project if deemed necessary by the Planning Director.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer must comply with the
requirements of the National PollLrcant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be pertained until an
NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt.
R:'.S~b~'A-rFRF'~LtT~AfJ.Is~ 9/2~j93 I 8
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, an erosion control plan in accordance with City
Standards shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and-submined to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall post security and enter into
an agreement guararrmeing the grading and erosion contTol improvements in
conformance wiffi applicable City Standards and subjec~to approval by the Department
of Public Works.
7
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA
CRAIG D. RUIZ
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
· 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE · PERPjS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 65%3183
JIrLY 20, 1993
RE: PA93~0137 EXTENSION OF TIME
The Fire Department has reveiwed the above referfenced extension of
time The Fire Department conditions of approval will remain the
same except for condition number 81 needs to be modified by
deleting the Riverside County Fire Department and replacing it with
the City of Temecula.
All questions regarding the meaning of this letter shall be
referred to the Fire Department Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral, Fire Safety Specialist
July 22, 1993
Craig D. Ruiz, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: PA 93-0137 (EXtension of Time for PP 226)
Mr. Ruiz:
RECEIVED
J U L 2 9 B93
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 proposed time
extension for PP 226, describing a 3.45 acre commercial development
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Pauba and
Margarita Rds.
The subject project is located within the District's sanitary
sewer service area. However, it must be understood the available
capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due
to the occurrence of development within the District and programs
of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be
based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of
the subject project, the status of the District's permit to
operate, and the service agreement between the District and the
developer of the subject project.
The developer must arrange for the preparation of a detailed plan
of service. The detailed plan of service will indicate the
location(s) and size(s) of system improvements to be made by the
developer (or others), and which are considered necessary in order
to provide adequate levels of service. To arrange for the
preparation of a plan of service, the developer should submit
information describing the subject project to the District's
Customer Service Department, (909) 925-7676, extension 409, as
follows:
Written request for a "plan of service".
Minimum $400.00 deposit (larger deposits may be required
Mail To: Post Offi~ Box 8500 · SanJadnco, C~/iforn~ 92581-8300 · Tebpho~ (909) 925~7676 * F= (909) 929~257
Ma~n Offk= 204~S.S~nJadnm Avenue, San/~a-m · Cuswmer Sex-v~/EnS/neexing A.,~.~: 440 EOzkland Avenue, Heme%CA
Craig D. Ruiz
City of Temecula
July 22, 1993
Page 2
for extensive development projects or projects located in
"difficult to serve" geographic areas).
Plans/maps describing the exact location and nature of
the subject project. Especially helpful materials
include grading plans and phasing plans.
Sanitary Sewer
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation (TVRWRF).
The nearest existing Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation
(TVRWRF) system sanitary sewer facilities to the subject project
are as follows:
12-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer aligned along Margarita
Rd., extending south of Rancho Vista Rd. for a distance of
approximately 700 ft.
Other Issues
The representative of the subject project must contact the
District's Customer Service Department to make arrangements for the
plan check and field inspection of onsite plumbing.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel
free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, extension 468.
Very truly yours,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
David G. Crosley)~
Senior Engineer
Customer Service Department
DGC/clz
AB 93-789
(w~-n~wk-P~30137.~
TO:
FROM
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL gKALTH
DATE: July 19, 199~
CITY OF TEMECULA
'gD. iz
onmental Health Specialist IV
A91-0137), EXTENSION OF TIME
The Dcpat ta~ent Of Environmental Health has reviewed the proposed Extension of
Time and has no objections.
Please see out memo dated 04-22-91.
SM:dr
(909) 275-8980
RECEIVED
July 27, 1993
Mr. Craig D. Ruiz
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
J V l 2 9 1993
~'d .....
Water Availability
APN 945-110-003 (PA93-0137)
Extension of Time, Plot Plan No. 226
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
ff you have any questions, please contact Senga Doherty.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
S8:$O:mgO6/F186
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 226
Project Description: Commercial retail
complex of 3 structures totallin~ 27,150+/-
souare feet on a 2.53 acre site.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 945-110-003
Plannina DeDartment
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for construction of a commercial
retail complex of three (3) structures, totaling 27, 150 +/- square feet on a 2.53
acre site.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula,
its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding
against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set
aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory
agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 226. The
City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action,
or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the
defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim,
action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee
shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the
City of Temecula..
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire
on
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot-Plan No. 226 marked Exhibit D, or as amended by these
conditions.
A:PP226
17
5. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
The applicant shall comply with the street improvement recommendations
outlined in the Transportation Engineering Division's Conditions of Approval,
which are included herein.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's Conditions of Approval
contained herein.
10.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City
Building and Safety Department's Conditions of Approval contained herein.
11.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements
of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee. Landscaping plans shall include enhancement along the
base and top of slopes for increased screeing.
12.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, or
within the time frame specified by the City Planning Director and City Building
Official as referenced in Condition No. 19, below. An automatic sprinkler
system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable
growth condition, including slopes maintained to the satisfaction of the
Planning Director. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway
shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.
13.
A minimum of 137 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 137 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit D. The parking area shall be
surfaced with aspbaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4
A:PP226 18
14.
inches of Class tl base.
A minimum of four (4) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on Exhibit D. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade,
or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place,
at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by
22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped
persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed
vehicles may be reclaimed at ~ or
by telephone "
In addition TO the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue
paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
15. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
Rancho Water District
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Eastern Municipal Water District
16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall be
submitted for Planning Department approval:
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans.
17. A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by --- the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
A:PP226 19
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibits F.1, F.2; and F.3.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit H.1 (Color Elevations) and Exhibit H.2
(Materials Board').
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. As a minimum, each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be
constructed with materials similar in appearance to that utilized for structure
exteriors and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
Bermed landscape screening shall be provided along the project's Margarita and
Pauba Road frontages. Berming shall be a minimum of three (3) feet in height;
street frontage landscaping shall substantially conform with the concept
illustrated in Exhibit E.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking .areas.
24.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and
shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County- Ordinance No. 655.
25.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, 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.
26.
Nine (9) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as
approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project
area.
27. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to
be determined by the Director of Building and Safe_ty to guarantee the
installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
A:PP226 20 --
28.
29.
30.
31.
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with
the Department of Building and Safety.
Contingent upon availability of irrigation water, prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have beerr
installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety.
The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation
system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. Alternatively,
installation of landscaping may be by means of bonding as referenced in
Condition No. 27 above, and installed at such times as irrigation water is in
adequate supply as determined by RCWD and the City Planning Director.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any
use allowed by this permit.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire all required off-site
property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at
least 120 days prior to submittal for building permit, enter into an agreement
to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462
at such time as the City acquires the property interests required for the
improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of
all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required
in connection with the project. Security for a portion of these costs shall be
in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report
obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall have
been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
32.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the
applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check
or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand,
Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One
Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the
check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
A:PP226 21
City of Temecula Engineering Department
The following are the Engineering Department 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 Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
33. As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
34.
The developer shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
35.
The developer shall submit two (2) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
36,
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
37.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
A:PP226 "22
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
45.
46.
No grading shall -take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department.
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by
a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer shall be required
for all public streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans
and profiles shall show the location of existing utility facilities within the right-
of-way.
No fill slopes shall be steeper than 2:1 unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. An earthen berm shall be provided along the top of all slopes as
directed by the City Engineer or his representative.
Prior to any work being performed on the private streets or drives, fees shall be
paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's
Office.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and
an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times
with adequate detours during construction.
The subdivider shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping (street and parks).
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
A:PP226 23
e. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
47,
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If
the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
48. A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. All
drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
49.
A drainage easement shall be provided along the eastern property line for
construction and maintenance of the drainage structure outlet. A copy of the
recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to the City for review.
50. Adequate protection shall be provided at the storm drain outlet structure to
prevent any damage to existing or proposed slopes or pertinent structures.
51.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
52.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
53.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad 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.
54.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a.cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
55.
The developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent
property. Easement and access geometric shall be as approved by the City
Engineer.
56.
Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City's C.A.T.V.
Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V.
Standards prior to issuance of Certificates c~f Occupancy.
57.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
A:PP226 '-
24
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required underthe EIR/Negative Declaration for the project.
The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of
the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not
been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building
permits for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the
Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been
provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer
shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of
the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of
those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such
fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to
protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of
any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic
mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; orovided that developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
58. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
59°
Improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be
required for review and approval by the City Engineer and included with the
precise grading plan.
60.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and
shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County
Standard 400 and 401 (curb sidewalk).
61.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. 461 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
62.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along all public street frontages in
accordance with Riverside County Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
63.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
64.
This minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City
Engineer. .
A:PP226 25
65.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to curb end gutter,
A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on
all interior public streets.
66.
Margarita Road shall be improved with 43 feet of asphalt concrete pavement
within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 1 O0
(110'/86').
67.
Pauba Road shall be improved with 32 feet of asphalt concrete pavement
within the dedicated right-of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103,
Section A (88'/64').
68.
In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these
conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the developer; or, in the event
the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in
the Subdivision Map Act, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the
City for the acquisition of such easement at the developer's cost pursuant to
Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City.
69. - Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No.
805.
City of Temecula Transoortation Engineering
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
70.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Margarita Road and Pauba Road and shall be
included in the street improvement plans.
Riverside County Fire Department (RCFDI
With respect to the Conditions of Approval regarding Plot Plan No. 226, the Fire
Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
71.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in
Ordinance 546.
72.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM
for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A:PP226 - 26
73.
74.
75.
A combination o.f on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system
(6"x4"2 1/2 x 2 1/2), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165
feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular
travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to
reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built-in fire
protection measures.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire
Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location
and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall
be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company
with the following certification:
"1 certify that the design of the water system is in
accordance with the requirements prescribed by the
Riverside County Fire Department."
76.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow of
1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department connection
shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25
feet from the building{s). A statement that the building{s) will be automatically
fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans.
77. install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as per UBC.
78. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinklered must appear
on the title page of the building plans.
79. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
80. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
81.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00 to the
Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees. ---
A:PP226 27
82.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall deposit
with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of 25
cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount
must be submitted seoaratelv from the plan check review fee.
83.
Blue-dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate
location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street
directly in line with fire hydrants.
84.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be referred to RCFD Planning
and Engineering Staff.
Riverside Countv Department of Health
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No. 226 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services should be available in this area. Prior
to any building plan submittals, the following items will be required:
85. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
86.
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted,
including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order
to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law.
For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (714)
358-5172}.
87.
A clearance letter from the Hazardous Materials Management Branch Services
(Jon Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has
been cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services.
c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with AB 2185).
d. Waste reduction Management.
City of Temecula Department of Building and Safety
88. Request for street addressing must be made prior to submittal of Building Plan
A:PP226 28
89.
90.
Review.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1988 editions of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical codes, 1990 National Electrical Code, California State
Administrative Code, Title 24 Handicapped and Energy Regulations and the
Temecula City Code.
Lighting on site and located on structures shall comply with Mount Palomar
Lighting Ordinance No, 655,
A:PP226 29
ITEM #5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBYECT-
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commissioners
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning~'
December 5, 1994
Vendor's Ordinance
Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner
BACKGROUND
The Vendor's Ordinance was on the Plann'mg Commission's November 7, 1994 agenda.
However, due to the lateness of the hour, the Planning Commission did not hear this item, but
rather, continued it to the meeting of December 5, 1994.
Subsequent to the November 7, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, the Assistant City Attorney
made some minor changes to the Vendor's Ordinance. No substantive changes were made.
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~J~.
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area 26 square miles
BACKGROUND
At the July 12, 1994 City Council Meeting, during City Council reports, Mayor Pro Tern 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 agenda 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.
ADOlicatiOn 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:~STAFFRv~VENDOR.PC 11 I18/94 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 Ooeration
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.
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:~STAFFFeT~VENDOR.PC 11118/94 Idb 3
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 94- - Blue Page 5
2. Resolution No. 94-- - Blue Page 13
3. Initial Study - BlUe Page 17
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
R:~STAFFRvI~VENDOR.PC 11118/94 klb 5
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF T~f, CITY COUNCIL OF THF, CITY
OF TElVlECULA PERTAINING TO OUTDOOR VENDORS
AND ESTABLLqHING REGULATIONS FOR OUTDOOR
VENDING
WRk':REAS, 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
WltEREAS, 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 ~ CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Fmdln~S. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
A. The planning 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. "Purnose. 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:%STAFFRFT~VENDOR. PC 11118/94 klb 6
B. Set forth the conditions and requirements under which outdoor vendors may be
permitreel 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.
A. '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. ~. 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:XSTAFFR°T~VB~IDOR.PC 11118/94 klb 7
2. A description of the type of food, beverage, or merchandise to be sold.
3. A descriplion and photograph (including signage and colors) of any
vending stand to be used. in the operalion of the business.
4. A site phn delineating the localion 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 shah 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 plaza or courtyard area for each allowed vending stand. The vending stand
should be free of all obstructions within a six font (6') perimeter.
4. Localions 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 Cede.
R:XSTAFFRP'~VB~IDO~.PC 11/18/94 klh 8
conditions:
Section 7. Prohibited Conduct and Hours of O~eration.
It shall be prolfibited 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. Leave any vending stand unattended.
3. Store, park, or leave any vending stand within any public right-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 vend'rag stand.
6. Allow any items relating to the operation of the vending business to be
placed anywhere other than in, or under the vending 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 appmved 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. Vendira, Stand Rcouirements.
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 vending 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 vending stands in or from which food is prepared or sold shall comply with
the following requirements:
R:~STAFPrr;~VENDOR.PC 11/18/94 kJb 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 eas'~y accessible.
Section 10. Display of Outdoor Vendlm, License.
A. All Outdoor Vending Uxcenses shall be displayed in a visible and conspicuous
location at all times during the operation of the rending business.
Section 11. Advert'Sing.
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 rending.
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 Hcense may do so, pursuant to the authority and procedures of Chapter 2.36 of this
Code.
Seaion 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 ~l. of this Code."
R:~TAFFP~r~VENDOR.PC 11118/$4 klb 10
Section 14. ff 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 lS. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be appropriately codi~ed 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 fuli 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:XSTAFFI~'%VENDOR.PC 11118/94 klb 11
Section 17. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of ,19__.
A'rl'h~T:
RON ROBFATS
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Gregory G. Diaz, Assistant City Attorney
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
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
foilowing vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: C OUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
RFNE S. GREEK
CiTY CLERK
R:XSTAFFRP'T~V~5%IDOR.PC 11118/94 klb 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:%STAFFRPT%VENDOR.PC 11/18/94 klb 13
ATrACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A I~-qOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMI~qSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF CITY OF TEMECULA VENDOR'S ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, THE 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 hw, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WvrEREAS, 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, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~
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
pedesu-ian 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:%STAFFRrr%VENDOR.PC 11118/94 klb 14
B. The Plamiing 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 specificaliy 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 Corr~lianee. 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:XSTAFFRv'r~VIENDOR.PC 11118/94 klb 15
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVEI) 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:
PLANNING COIvlMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:~STAFFI~'BVENDOR.PC 11118/94 klb 16
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL STUDY
R:%STAFFRvT%VENDOR.pC 11118/94 kJb 17
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Initial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUNDINFORMA~ON
1. Name of Project:
2. Case Numbers:
3. Location of Project:
4. Description of Project:
5. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
Name of Proponent:
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Vendor's Ordinance
N~A
City Wide
An Ordinance to address transient and road side vending within City
limits.
October 19, 1994
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590
ENVIRONMENTAL !IrKPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section
Yes Maybe No
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__
R:~STAFFRP'T%VB~IOOR.PC 11118/94
h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefacu~n, ground
flilure, or similar hazards?
i. Any development within an Aiquist-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 paRems, 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 mrbidity?
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)?
m
Maybe
m
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
R:~STAFe-e-~VENDOR.PC 11118/94 Id/a 19
y~ Maybe No
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 r~plenishment of
existing species? _
d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? __
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of
animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish,
amphibians, shellfish, benthie organisms, and/or insects)? _
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of animalS? __
c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __
d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? __
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? _
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels'?. __
c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? __
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? __
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? X_._
b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described
in a community or general plan? __
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? __
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? __
_ 1L
X
X
X
_ x__
_ X
_ x__
_ X_
X
_ x__
X
X
_ X_
_ x__
_ X_
R:~TAFFRv~VENDOR.PC 11/18/94 klb 20
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, pesticides, 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 buman population of an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand
for additionaft 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 paRems of circulation or movement of
people end/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
X
X
R:~STAFFWrI~VENDOItPC 11118/94 klb 21
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental setvices:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial mounts of fuel or energy7
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need fur new systems, or
substantial alterations to any of the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b, Communications systems?
c. Water systems?
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks?
e, Storm water drainage systems?
f. Solid waste disposal 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 hazard7
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:
19.
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? __
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? __
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? _
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities?
Yes
Maybe No
_
_ x__
_ X
X
X
X
X
X
_ X
X
X
X
X
X
_ X
X
_ X
R:XSTAFFRF~VENDOR.PC 11/18/94 klb 22
20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological'or historic site?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object?
c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacrod uses within the
potential impact area?
Y~
]V/a_vbe
X
R:~STAFRI:r~VENDOR, PC 11/18/94 klb 23
HI. 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 wpography; destruction, covering or
modification of any unique geologic or physical futures; 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
in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the rate and amount of surface runoff; alterations to the course or
flow 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 Found waters; reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies; or exposure of people or property to water related baTards such as flooding. All vendors will
be located on commercial property that is fully improved. No significant impacts will occur. No mitigation
is required.
PlantLife
The proposal will 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 anin~als; 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:~STAFFtt~'T'~VENDOR,PC 11118/94 klb 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 w'dl 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 fully improved. No significant
impacts will occur. No mitigation is required.
Light and Glare
The project site is located within the Mount 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 end glare may result from the development of the site for a vendor. The impact of the
additional light end 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.
L~nd Use
The proposal will result in a minor alteration to the present lend 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 w~l 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:%STAFFI~I'%VENDOR.PC 11118/94 klb 25
HOusiw,
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 movement; effect existing parking facilities;
create a demand for new parking; impact existing transportation systems, including public transportation; alter
present paRems 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.
The proposal will not result in the use of substantial mounts 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.
Utilitie~
The proposal will not result in the need for new systems or substantial alterations to power, communications
systems, water systems, sanita_ry systems, sWrm 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 rending carts could possibly have detrimental visual
impacts on the surrounding area, the cans 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:XSTAFFRoI~VB%IDOR.PC 11118/94 Idb 26
The proposal will not result in an impac~ upon the quality or quanti~ 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 R~sources
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 effect 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:%STAFF~rI'~VENDOR.PC 11/18/94 klb 27
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIi~iCANCE
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 sustnining
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 No
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 comulatively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate resources may be
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.)
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" IMPACT FINDINGS
Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources?
Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued
viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code).
Yes
X
R:~STAFFI~T~VENDOR.PC 11118fa4 klb 28
ENVIRONMENTAL DKr,'fit~NATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
x__
I find that although the proposed project ~ould have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT bca significant effect in this case
because the Mitigation Measures described on ~he 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 Tifie
Date
R:X~TAFFI~T~VEHDOR,I~ 11/18/94 klb 29
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
I,~
;>
0
Z