HomeMy WebLinkAbout060595 PC AgendaAGENDA
TI~ff, CULA PLANNING COMMISSION
June 5, 1995, 6:00 PM
Raneho California Water Distriet's
Board Room
42135 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA 92390
C~tL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ford
ROLL CALL:
Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster end Ford
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the comminsioners on items that
are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to
the Commlnsioners about en item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be
~led out end filed with the Comminsion Secretary.
When you ere called to speak, please come forward end state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the plnnning Secretary before
Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenthi
2. Director's Hearing Case Update
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Cue No.:
Applicant:
Proposal:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Development Code
City of Temecula
Review of the Development Code
John Meyer
Continue to June 19, 1995
4. Case No:
Applicent:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Henher:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. 954MB4 (Plot Plan) - Medical Design
Concepts
Luserdi Construction
Northwest comer of Winchester Road and Diaz Road
A request to approve a 309,213 square foot building including 209,339
square feet of werebonse, 69,752 square feet of assembly/cleanroom end
30,122 square feet of office.
Negative Declaration
Saled Naaseh
Approval
Cas~ No-'
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
pJanner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. 9S-0031 - Environmental Impact Report
City of Temecula
The southern and western portion of the City of Temecula, in and around
Old Town Temecnia
An Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Old Town
Redevelopment Project (OTRP). The OTRP is a joint public/private
venture consisting of 10 entertainment and support fac'di~es in the Old
Town Core area, hotel (with supporting commercial USes) and a wild
west arena west of Old Town Temecula. The project includes necessary
roads, parking areas, and other infrastructure needed to support the
redevelopmeat of Old Town. The project also includes the protection of
significant open space areas.
David Hogan, Associate Planner
Recommend Certification
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Appfica~on No. 940061 - Master Conditional Use Permit
TZBG: Zev Buffman
A section of Old Town Temecnia generally bounded by Second Street to
the south, Muftieta Creek to the west, Moreno Road to the north and
Interstate 15 to the east.
Master Conditional Use Permit for the following uses: cabaret theaters
(2), saloonS (2), opera hoUSe, TV/redio studio, virtual reality complex
(2), quickdraw competition area, central ticket office/visitor center,
public square, administration and back of house facilities.
Environmental Impact Report (Planning Application No. 95-0031 )
Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
Recommend Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. 95-0003 - Westside Specific Plan, Planning
Application No. 95-0004 = Tentative Tract Map No. 28011,
Development Agreement No. DV95-0001
Gene Hancock
West of Pujol Street and east of the western City L'unit
Planning Application No. 950003 (Westside Specific Plan) - a Specific
Plan for approximately 154.1 gross acres, consisting of six planning
areas (two commercial, two residential, one mixed use and one open
space). Planning Application No. 95-0004 (Tentative Tract Map No.
28011) - a nine parcel subdivision of 154.1 gross acres. Development
Agreement No. DV 95-0001 - An agreement beaten Hancock
Development Company and the City.
Environmental Impact Report (Planning Application No. 95-0031)
Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
Recommend Approval
Next meetings:
June 19, 1995, 6:00 p.m. Development Code
July 17, 1995, 6:00 p.m. Development Code
At the Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135
Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Discuss with Commission the cancellation of the July 3, 1995 regular planning Commission meeting due
to the July 4th holiday.
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
R:XWIMBI~V(NaIANCOMM~AGI~DAS~6=5=95 ~/1/95 ~w 2
ITEM #2
MI~IVIORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJP, CT:
plnnning COmmi,~SiOD
Gary Thornhill~ Director of PI~
Juno 5, 1995
Dil~ctor's Ite, a,ring Case UpOnte,
There were no DirecTor's Henzing cases heard in May, 1995:
ITEM #3
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
June 5, 1995
SUBJECT: Draft Development Code
Prepared by:
John Meyer
RECOMMENDATION: Continue Public Hearing to June 19, !.995
BACKGROUND
The following changes have been made to the program schedule:
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
MEETING DATES
Chapter 9.06 Residential Districts
Chapter 9.08 Commercial/Industrial Districts
Chapter 9.12 Public/Institutional Districts
Chapter 9.14 Open Space/Recreation Districts
Chapter 9.16 Specific Plan Overlay District
Chapter 9.18 Village Center Overlay District
Chapter 9.20 Floodplain Overlay District
Chapter 9.22 Planned Development Overlay District
Chapter 9.24 Off-street Parking and Loading
Chapter 9.26 Covenants for Easements
Chapter 9.34 Definition of Terms
Consistency Zoning (Zoning Map)
General Plan Amendment
Revisions Addendum
Meeting II
April 3, 1995
Meeting III
May 15, 1008
Juno 5, 1005
June 19, 1995
Meeting IV
July 17, 1995
ITEM #4
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 5, 1995
Planning Applica~on No. PA95-0034- Medical Design Concepts (MDC)
Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA95-0034; and
2. APPROVE the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA95-
0034; and
3. ADOPT Resolution No. 95- , approving Planning
Application No. PA95-0034, based upon 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:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Medical Design Concepts (MDC)
Lusardi Construction
A request to construct a 309,213 square foot building including
209,339 square feet of warehouse, 69,752 square feet of
assembly/cleanroom, and 30,122 square feet of office.
Northwest corner of Winchester Road and Diaz Road
M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
North:
South:
East:
West:
M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial)
Not requested
BP (Business Park)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Rancho California Water District Headquarters
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Total Site Area
Building Footprint Area:
Total Building Area:
Office:
Warehouse:
Assem bly/CI eanroom:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Handicap:
Building Height:
12.1 acres
259,787 square feet
309,213 square feet
30, 122 square feet
209,339 square feet
69,752 square feet
131,267 square feet
124,022 square feet
365
393
8
37.5 feet
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA95-0034 was formally submitted to the Planning Department on
May 8, 1995. As a result of the applicants request for the permit to be fast tracked, a
Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on May 10, 1995.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposal to construct a two stow industrial building which will include office
area of 30,122 square feet, warehousing and distribution area of 209,339 square feet, and
69,752 square feet of assembly/clean room. As proposed, the project will traverse several
lot lines. To remedy this situation a one lot parcel map is required as a condition of approval.
ANALYSIS
Site Desian
Access to the site will be provided by two drive aisles from Winchester Road, two from
Avenida De Ventas, and one from Diaz Road. The access from Winchester Road will be
marked "Right in/Right out Only". The building is located along Winchester Road, separated
by a thirty (30) foot landscaped area with berming. Parking areas surround the building on all
sides, except for the frontage along Winchester Road. The parking area in front of the building
along the Diaz Road frontage is intended for visitors only. The main parking area for the
employees will be along the Avenida De Ventas frontage. More parking is provided on the
southerly ~side of the building adjacent to the Rancho California Water District Headquarters
where the truck loading areas are also located. These loading areas will be screened from
Winchester Road by a 16 foot high wall that matches the building. The loading area will also
be covered by a metal canopy.
The intersections of Diaz Road and Winchester Road, as well as, Diaz Road and Avenida De
Ventas are proposed to be enhanced by 60-80 foot wide landscaped areas. The building will
be completely surrounded by landscaping. The front of the building is enhanced by a seventy
(70) foot wide landscaped area which will appropriately complement the large building
elevations. This site design will provide a nice landscaped entrance to the business park. The
parking areas are also well landscaped and exceed Ordinance 348 requirements.
Circulation Element/Traffic
The General Plan identifies a 25 foot Transportation Easement along Diaz Road. The project
provides for this easement: however, this easement does not continue through the City of
Murrieta along the ultimate extension of Diaz Road which becomes Washington Street in the
City of Murrieta. Staff is trying to gather more information on this issue and will be reporting
to Planning Commission on the hearing date. The Planning Commission needs to provide
direction to staff regarding this matter. Staff requested a traffic report analyzing the project's
traffic impacts in a Development Review comment letter dated May 11,1995 and again in a
letter dated May 19, 1995. Staff has not yet received this report. If this report is not
submitted and reviewed prior to the Planning Commission meeting, staff will request a
continuance at the meeting to enable staff time to review the traffic report.
Architecture
The building will be constructed of tilt-up concrete and will be painted white. The mass of the
building will be broken up by 2 inch horizontal and 3/4 inch vertical reveals, with 2 foot wide
diamonds painted blue as shown on the elevations. The front of the building will have chrome
polished stainless steel and dark glass. The mass of the south elevation which is
approximately 500 feet long will be mitigated by the use of 2 foot wide and 16 foot long
windows.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The existing zoning for the site is M-SC (Manufacturing-Service Commercial). Warehouse and
distribution, assembly, and office uses are permitted within the M-SC zone with the approval
of a plot plan pursuant to Section 18,30 of Ordinance No. 348. The General Plan Land Use
designation for the site is Business Park (BP). According to the Draft Development Code,
warehouse, assembly, and office uses would be permitted in the zone. Until the new
Development Code is adopted, Staff utilizes the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348.
The project as proposed is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL D~i~RMINATION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been
prepared for this project. Staff determined that although the proposed project could have a
significant impact on the environment, these impacts are not considered to be significant due
to mitigation measures included in the project design, the Conditions of Approval, and the
Mitigation Monitoring Program. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
adopt a Negative Declaration for the project and approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and all City ordinance requirements.
The approval of the project will allow Medical Design Concepts (MDC) to expand their facilitiea
in Temecula and will provide fifty (50) additional employment opportunities. MDC's employee
distribution is approximately 40 administrative, 15 warehouse and 200 assembly.
FINDINGS
The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all applicable
requirements of state law and City ordinances. The project is consistent with the
General Plan Land Use designation of Business Park (BP). In addition, the project is
permitted under the existing Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) zoning.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present end future logical development of the surrounding
property.
The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local
ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section
65360, Section 18.30 (Plot Plan) of Ordinance No. 348.
The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community. An Initial Study was prepared for this project which indicated that
although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, the
significant effects can be mitigated to a level less than significant. This is
accomplished through project design and mitigation measures contained in the
Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed
planning application (Plot Plan), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained
within the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project is located in an area
of existing and proposed light industrial and commercial office development.
Approval of this Plot Plan will have a di minimis impact on fish and wildlife resources.
The project involves no potential adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on
wildlife as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from publicly maintained
roads (Winchester Road, Diaz Road, and Avenida De Ventas).
The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project.
10. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated
with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11
Initial Study - Blue Page 22
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 40
Exhibits - Blue Page 47
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. Site Plan
D. Landscape Plans
E. Elevations
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
R:~'TAFFRPT~4PA95.PC 5131/95 m 6
ATrA~ N0. 1
PC ]~-QOLUTION NO. 95-
A I~EQOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEtV!ECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPHCATION NO. PA95-(MB4
(PLOT PLAN) TO CONSTRUCT A 309,113 SQUARE FOOT B[~,DING
INCLUDING 209,339 SQUARE FEET OF WA~I~tOUSE, 69,7S2 SQUARE
FEET OF ASSI~VIBLY/CI.~.ANRO OM AND 30,122 SQUARE FEET OF
OFFICE. LOCATED ON NORTHWEST CORNER OF WINCHESTER
ROAD AND DIAZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARC~-I,
NUMBERS 909-310-029 THRU 40.
V~H~:u,F_AS, MDC ~ed planning Application No. PA95-0034 in accordance with the
City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Sulxh'vision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
V~/I:IER!~,~S, planning Application No. PA~5-0034 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
~, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA95-0034
on June 5, 1995, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescxib~ by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WIIERFAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, ff any, of aH pumas desert, lag to be heard, the Commition considered all facts
relating to planning Al~liCation No. PA95-0034;
NOW, T!tEP-,EFO~, ~ PLANNING COMMESION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECUIA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are tru~ and correct.
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commi-~sion, in approving plannln~ Application No.
PL05-0034 makes the following findings, to wit:
1. The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The project is consistent with the
General Plan I ~nd Use designation of Business Park (BP). In addition, the project is permitted
under the existing Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-5C) zoning.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and fuUne logical deveiopment of the surn3unding propony.
R:XSTAFPRPTX34PA95.PC 3~31/95 m 7
3. The proposed use or action complies with all other requixements of state
law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code
Section 65360, Section 18.30 (Plot Plan) of Ordinance No. 348.
4. The proposed pwjea will not be detrimental to the health, safety or
general welfare of the community. An Initial Study was Frepared for this projea which
indicated that although the proposed pwject could have a significant impact on the environment,
the significant effects can be mitiEated to a level less than significant. This is accomplished
through project design and initiation measures contained in the Conditions of Approval and the
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
5. The site is suitable w acCOmmodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed
pinnnlng application (Plot Plan), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within
the City's General Plan and Ordinanc~ No. 348.
6. The project is compatible with surrounding land useS. The project is
located in an area of existing and proposed light industrial and commercial office development.
7. Approval of thi~ Plot Plan will have a di minimi~ impact on fish and
wildlife resources. The project involves no potential adverse dfect, either individually or
cumula~vely, on wildllfe as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
8. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
W, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Acc~s to the project site is from publicly maintained wads
(Winchester Road, Diaz Road, and Avenida De Ventas).
9. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they
are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
pwject.
10. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and heroin incorporated by rderence.
A. As condi~oned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA95-0034, as
proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the
present and future development of the surrounding propen'y.
B. The Planning Commi.~sion in adopting the Negative Declaration, purs,,ant to the
provisions of the C~llfornh Environmental Quality Act, specifically finds that the appwval of
thi~ Plot Plan will have a di minimi~ imp~lCt On fish and wildlife resources. The Plnnnin~
Commigsion specifically finds that in considering the record as a whole, the project involves no
potential adverse effea, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife as the same is defined
in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. This is because that thi~ project will be located
in an area that has previously been disturbed and has not historically contained any sensitive
habitat. The project includes the consU'uction of a 309,213 square foot building to be used for
office, warehousing and distribution, and assembly/clean room and that all of the same are
located in the County of Riverside. Furthermore, the Planning Commission finds that an initial
R:~T~PA95.1~C 3/31t95 m 8
study h~s been prelnnM by the City Staff and considered by the P!anninE Commi.tsion 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 Neffalive Dec]arafion of envinmmentnl impact was issued and
thi~ eli minimis filR:Rllg i8 made. In additioxl, the Planning COmmlsaiOn ~lldg that there is no
evidence before the City thai the proposed prujea will have any potential for an adverse effect
on wildlife resources, or the habitaX on which the wildlife depends. Finally, the Planning
Commission finds tl~t the City l~s, on the b~nls of substantial evidence, rebutted the
presumption of adverse eftat contained in 14 CMifornin Code of Regulations 753.5(d).
Section 3. linvironm~ai/d Complinnee. An Initial Study prelnml for this projea
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significm impact on the environment,
thcl~ Will not be a sibqiificant effect ill this Ca~ because the mitigation measures included in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program will reduce these impacts to infignifieant levels. Therefore, a
Negative Declaration is hereby granted.
Section 4. Conditions. Thin the City of Temecula planning Commission hereby
approves planning Application NO. PA95-0034 to construct a 309,213 square foot building
located on northwest comer of Winchester Road and Diaz Road, and known as Assessor' s Parcel
Numbers 909-310-029 through 040 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached bento, and incorporated herein by thi.~ reference and made
a part hereof.
R:%STAFFRlq'~4PA~J.PC $/31/95 m 9
Section 5. PASSED, AlPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of June, 1995.
STEVBN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I nk'~RRy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Plsnning
Commi,~sion of the City of Temecula at a xegular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of June,
1995 by the following vote of the Commi,~sion:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THO~
SECRETARY
R:',STAFFRFI'Lt4pAg~.PC 5/31/95 m ~ 0
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~TAFFRPT~4PA95,1aC 5~31f9~ m ] ] ~ /
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA95-0034- Plot Plan
Project Description: A proposal to construct a 309,21 3 ~luere foot building which will
include office area of approximately 30,122 square feet, warehousing and distdbution
area of 209,339 square feet, and 69,752 square feet of assembly/clean room.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-310-029through 040
Approval Date: June 5, 1995
Expiration Date: June 5, 1997
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Bght (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
(~78.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice Of
Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California
Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required
above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be voided by mason of failure
of condition.
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any' of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City,
or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative
body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Plot Plan
which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public
Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 210009.I seo., including but not by
the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the
developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period.
City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to
either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be
responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
R:~TAl~RFr~14PAg].I~C Z~1~95 m 12 /'
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it
shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilizatior~
contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with the exhibits, as
approved with Planning Application No. PA95-0034, or as amended by these
conditions.
A. Three hundred and sixty five (365) parking spaces shall be provided.
B. Eight (8) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
C. Fifteen (15) Class II bicycle spaces shall be provided.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with approved color and
materials.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded
by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
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.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted
to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate
filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall
be shown. These plans shall show screening for the transformers per SCE standards.
Landscape Plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance.
10.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
11.
An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage shall be submitted and approved by
the Planning Director.
12. Roof-mounted equipment shell be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
13. A 25 foot Transportation Easement shall be provided along Diaz Road.
14.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape and
irrigation plans.
15.
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.
16.
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.
17.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to
guarantee the adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with
the Department of Planning.
18.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
19.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
20.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative
Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled access regulations and the Temecula Municipal
Code (1994 editions are due for adoption by September, 1995).
R:~TklrFRPTLMPA95,PC 6/1/95
21. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
22. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
23.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
24.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
25.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
26. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
General Requirements
27.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and
improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
28.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
29.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
30. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits:
31.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
R:~TAPIrRPT~34PA95.PC 5/31/95 m 15
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
State Water Resources Control Board
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Rood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Caltrens
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the
Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code,
Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of
Approval.
A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address
all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of
engineered structures and pavement sections.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and
shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and
liquefaction.
An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works.
The Developer s~ali post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be
either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures
as approved by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to
issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been
already credited to this proparty, no new charge needs to be paid.
R:~TAI~R?~4pA95.1~ 5/31/95 m 16
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone "A" and is
subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this
project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula and with the rules
and regulations of FEMA for development within a Rood Zone 'A' which may include
obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA.
A Flood Plain Development Permit and drainage study shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval. The drainage study shall include,
but not be limited to, the following criteria:
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities as directed by
the Department of Public Works.
Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. ·
The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard
map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
D. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development 100-yearfloodplain and floodway
shall be shown on the precise grading plan.
Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or underground
storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public
Works.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of
streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will
apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited
for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by
the Departmen~ of Public Works.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be
verified. Any upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required, shall be provided as
part of development of this project.
R:~TAFl~,F1~34pA95.!~C 5i31i95 m 17
Pdor to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits:
48.
All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
49.
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or
precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works:
Rowline grades shell be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Nos.
207A and 401 (curb and sidewalk).
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown en the improvement plans
as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
Additional dedication as required for standard parkway shall be offered on the
Parcel Map. Said dedication shall include areas of proposed sidewalk/parkway
as required.
50.
A Traffic ContrOl Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved
by the Department of Public Works. Where construction on existing City streets is
required, traffic shall remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall provide
for adequate detour during construction.
51.
A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for Avenida de Ventas and Diaz Road.
52.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
9uaranteeing the construction of the following public and private improvements in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works.
Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate
]~:LST~PA9J.PC 5/31/95 m 15
B. Storm drain facilities
C. Landscaping (slopes and parkways)
D. Sewer and domestic water systems
E. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines
F. Erosion control and slope protection
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit:
53.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison
Southern California Gas
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Fire Department
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
54.
All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been submitted/accompl ished
to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
55. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works.
56.
All building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and
elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction
and site conditions.
57.
The Developer shall deposit with ~he Engineering Department a cash sum as
established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
58.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction
Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
59.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop,
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
60.
The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility
mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be
paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or
final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date
on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase
thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee,
R:~rf~!mAg3.!W3 5/31/95 m 19
a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this
Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility
fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.
The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in
excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such
fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the
provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee
district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee
for this project; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
61,
The Developer shall record 8 written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western By-
Pass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
62.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed medians in
accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the
approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney,
63.
The Developer shall provide a copy of the executed "Western By-Pass Corridor"
agreement for the MDC IV facility located on Business Park Drive in compliance with
Condition of Approval No. 53 of PA93-0124.
64.
The Developer shall record a Parcel Map prior to the issuance of the building permit.
However, this condition may be deferred to occupancy subsequent to a recorded
agreement between the City and Developer.
Pdor to Issuance of Certification of Occupancy:
65.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
66.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive
approaches, parkway trees, street lights on 811 interior public streets, signing, striping,
traffic signal interconnect, and traffic signals as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
67.
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
R:~STAI~PRJxI~4PAgdj.PC 5~Jl/9'j m 20 ~
easement at the Developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5,
which shall be at no cost to the City.
68. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805,
69. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works.
70. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and
replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
71. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
72. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Riverside
County Health Department's transmittal dated May 12, 1995, a copy of which is
attached.
73. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations contained in the Riverside
County Fire Department's transmittal dated May 19, 1995, a copy of which is
attached.
74. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated May 24, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated May 18, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
76. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern
Information Center transmittal dated May 18, 1995, a copy of which is attached..
TO:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: May 12, 1995
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATrN: Sated Naaseh E"ECEI
RE R DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV 'L~ ,v it 8 te~.7
PLOT PLAN NO. PA95-0034 $~. ...... '-'--.
Depa~iment of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA95-0034 and has no
objections. PRIOR TO PLAN CII~CK SUBMITTAL, the following are required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts.
b) If there are to be any food establishments, three complete sets of plans for each food
establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a
plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail
Food Facilities Law 2.
c) If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Depadment of
Environmental Health HaTardous Materials Management Branch (358-5055) will be
required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.3.
· HaTardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.2.
· HaTardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.1).
· Waste reduction management.
GD:dr
(909) 285-8980
cc: Mike Shelter, HaTardous Materials Branch
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WE. ST SAN lAGINTO AVENUE · PEILRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 · (909) 657-3183
I.M. HARRIS
May 19, 1995
TO:
ATrEN':
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTMiENT
SAT1;33 NAASEH
PA95-0034
D s.j ~ICAL DESIGN CONCEPTS
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot pla.~ the Fire
Depa.tment recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
City of Temect~ Ordlnanee.~ and/or recognizl~ fire protection standards:
The fire Department is required to set a minim,ml fire flow for the nedel or
construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in Oraiaance
546. A fire flow of 5000 GPM for a 3' hour dmtion at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible matf, rial is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2-2
1/2"), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the
building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow Shall
be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Depaxtment for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire
D~paxtment appwval signature block, and Shall conform to hydrant type, location,
spacing and minimum file flow. Once th~ plans are signed by the local water company,
the Originain shall be presented to the Fke D~nutment for signature.
The required water system, including ~ hydrants, Shall be installed and accqr~ by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the
job site. ~
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer Shall deposit, with the City of
Temecula, the sam of $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
Prior to the issuance of building t~mits, the applicant/develot~ shall be ~ponsible to
submit a phn check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecul~
TH~ FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE lVu~x- PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
Instaft a complete fire sprinkler system in a~l buffclings. The post indicator valve and rite
department conheron .~h~ll be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a mlnlml31~ of 25 foet ~ the b13i]d~g(.~). A st~t__ement that the building
wi31 be automatically fife sprlnlcled must be inclnded on the flue page of the building
The building shall be equipped with a manual and automatic fire ahnn system with
audio/visual devices for occupant notification and monitored to a U.L. approved xemote
receiving station.
Knox Key lock boxe8 sh~fi be ~ on ~11 buildings/suites. If building/suite recluizes
g~Tnrclous Material Rq~ordng (Matearl Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data
and key storage cabinets shn11 be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fire or
burglar nl~nn system, the boxes WIll requize *Tamper* monko~ing. Phn~ Sh~ll be
submitted to the Fhe Depaxhuent for al~proval pxior to il~t~lhtlon.
10. All exit doon sh~11 be Openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
11.
Instsll panic hardware and exit signs as pe~ chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code.
Low level exit sips sh~11 also be provided, where exit sip are required by section
3314(a).
12.
Occupancy separation wa11~ will be x~luired as per the Uniform Building Code, Section
503.
13.
Install pomble fire extinguishers with a minlmB:3~ rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper. placement.
14.
It is pwhibited to use/process or stoxe any ~ in this occupancy thnt would classify
it as an 'H' occupancy per Ch.npter 9 of the Uniform Building Code.
15.
Blue dot reflectors shnll be mounted in pzivate streets and ctdveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
fire hydrant.
16.
Prior to flnnl inspection of any building, the applicant ~hall prepare and submit to the
Fh~ Depamnent for approval, a s~te plan designating required fire lnnes with appropriate
lane t~dntlng and or signs.
17.
Street address shnll be posted, in a visible location, mlnlmuUl 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a conwasting backl~xudnd.
18. Applicant/developer sh~ll be respons[bl~ to provide or show there exists conditions set
forth by the Fim ~ent.
19. Final conditions will be addressed when building plan,~ are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Ofrx~.
10. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be rP2enEd to tim Fire Department
PlannlnE alld engineering section (909)694-6439.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department planner
Fire Safety Speclali~;
Mr. Sated Nuseh
~ of Temecula
Planning Departm-m
43~74 Business Park Drive
Tmne~nat~ C.A 92~90-3606
Water Ava~nbiUty
Assessor's Parcels Ncs. 909-310029 through 90P-310-040
PA 950034
DeaxlVlr. Nsmseh:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries
d Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water setvi~, therefore, would ~e
svailable upcm mmpletion d ~nsncial arran~emenm behveen RCWD and the
property owner.
Water availability would be cunthtgent upon the properP/owner si~nin$ an Agency
Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. Currently,
RCWD has an inter-agency agreement with F. astem Municipal Water District to
p_~c,-~dc sewer service to your area.
If you have n~y quest{nns, please coetoct M~ Senga Dohcny.
RANCHO C.~[-Tb'X]RNIA WATER DISTRICT
Stcvc Bra~ PJZ.
Dcvclopment F, nginccrlng ldanagcr
Semiat Dohefiy, Enlincestna Tcdmictan
as ern A/[u n ictp a l (/at er [)ist rict
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
May 18, 1995
RECEIVED
HAY 2 2
Attn: Mr. Saied Naaseh
Re: Planning application - 95-0034, 291,620 Square Foot
Warehouse/Office bldg, Northwest Corner of Winchester and Diaz
Roads
Dear Mr. Naaseh:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below:
GENERAL
It is our understanding the sub3ect project is a proposal to
construct an approximate 291,620 square foot warehouse/office
structure on lots 101-112 of Parcel Map 27336 (APN 167-200-101
through 112) located at the northwest corner of Winchester and Diaz
Roads in Temecula, California.
The subject project is locatedwithin the District's sanitary sewer
service area, however, it must be understood the available service
capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due
to the occurrence of development within the District and programs
of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be
based on the detailed Plan of Service requirements, the timing of
the subject project, the 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 other), and which are considered necessary in order
to provide adequate levels of service. To arrange for the
preparation of a Plan of Service, the developer should submit
information describing the subject project to the District's
Customer Service Department, (909)766-1810, ext. 4468, as follows:
Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 - San]acinto, r~l;,c,)rnia 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257
Msin Offim: 2045 8. Ssn/acinto Av~ue, SsnJacinto , Cusmm~S~v~/F~---~ng~.~-~ 440 F_Chldo-a Avmme, H,~-t, CA
1. Written request for a "Plan of Service"
2. Minimum $600.00 deposit.
3. Detailed project information including expected number
of employees at the facility and final warehouse an~
office floor area.
WATER
The project is within the water service territory of Rancho
California water District.
SANITARY SEWER
The subject project is considered tributary to the District's
Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVWRF).
The nearest existing TVWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the
subject project are as follows:
15-inch gravity sanitary sewer along the project frontage
in Diaz Road.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact this office at (090)766-1810, ext. 4468.
Sincerely,
Eastern Munlclpal Water District
Kevin L. Crew
Senior Customer Service Engineer
KLC:jf
California Eastern
Archaeological Information
Inventory Center
Eastern Information Canfar
University of California
Riverside, CA 9252'1
(~o9) "~'/-s'/4,s
FAX (gO~) ?~7-540~ ~
May 18, 199~
Sajed Naaseh
City of Temecula
Planning Deparanent
43174 B,,~'incss Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Case No.: PA 95-0034
Applicant: PHS
Dear Saied:
Please find enclosed our comments for one project Wansmittal as requested by the Planning
Department. If you have any questions, please contact the Palm Information Career at
(909) 787-5745 and specify the transmittal number and the date on which we submittal our
comments.
PA 95-0034 ........................................... ASAP
Sincerely,
Uyen Doan
Information Officer
Enclosures
IIECEI F-O
Callfomla Eastern
Archaeological Information
Inventory Center
Eastem Information C, entm'
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521
(gO9) 787-5745
FAX (909) 787-5409
CULTURAL RESOURCE REV -W
DATE: ~f~)///'//qf5
RE: Case TrammiUal Reference Dnsi~nation:
Records at the Hastern Informer!on Center of the California Historical Resources InformMion System have
been reviewed to detm,,dne if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
t~sour~(s). AFnss~lmsdyisnsxnnmmd~d. ~'
is/.
AFnssele, ulturslx~ou~study(MFI )klaafifiedoneormorectdmrslr~souz~es.
Thc pm. icot Lea contains, or has the pmsltty of con~, mdUmd zmosm:.. However, due to the mtuze of the
project or prinr data recovcry studies, an sdvaseeffcct on culturd rcsotmms im not anficil~. Pmther mttKly is not
~Phuel adtural xemourc~msdy(MP# 273~)idcotmed ue~mnl~cour~t. Purthermd~i~not n~.,,,-,--,,td
There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
_~f~during~nstru~i~n~a~tum~r~s~een~un2s~d~w~xksh~u~db~h~b`~rdive~t~iinth~~
Due to the ~logi~tl sensitivity of the area, euffimovi~ during consms~ion should k mo~z, md by a professional
archaeologist.
Th~ submission of ~ cultural r~o~ management mpost is ~ommmded followi~ luidelinm for A.,cha~ologimd
Ruoutce Msnagement Rcpom ptq~x~d by th~ California Of Sce of H/storio ~, Prwstnmion Planning Butlatin
4 (a), December 1989.
m
m
Fnasell
Pimse II!
PtmselY
R~ords search and field survey
Testing [Rvsluatc resource significant; pmpese mitigation measures for 'significant" si~s.]
Mili~ation [Daut r~overy by eacavatinn, pl~sefvatlon in place, or a combination of the tw~.]
Monitor ~ardunoving a~iviti~
If you have any questions, plesse contact us.
Eastern Information Center
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL STUDY
R:~STAFI;RltT~4PA95.1~C 5/31/~5 m~ 22
City of Temecula
Pl3nning Department
Initial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Name of Project:
2. Case Number:
3. Location of Project:
4. Description of Project:
5. Date of Enviromemtal
Asse~ssment:
6. Name of Proponent:
7. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
H. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Medical Design Concepts (MDC)
p]awning Application No. 95-0034 (Plot Plan)
Notchwest corner of Winchester Road and Diaz Road
A request to approve a 291,620 square foot indusffial building
including 263,980 square feet of warehouse and 27,640 square feet
of office space.
May 11, 1995
Craig Wulfemeyer
43225 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
{Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section
1. Farth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering
of the soil?
c. Change in wpography or ground surface relief fesmres?
d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
f. Changes in siltafion, deposition or erosion?
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or !him?
Yes Maybe No
~ _ _
~ _ _
_ _ X
_ _ ~
X _ _
X
_ _ X
R:XSTAFFRPT~4PA95.l~ 5/3Y95 m 23
h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as
earthquakes, landslideS, mudslides, liquefaction, ground
failure, or similar hazards?
i. Any development within an Aiqu'~st-Priolo Special Studi~ 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 p~ne-_~, 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 akerafion of surface
water quality, including but not limited to, temperauffe,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aqulfer
by cuts or excavations?
h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding?.
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and
aquatic plants)?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
R:\STAFFRFr~4PAg$.I~C 5F~1~95 m 24
Yes Maybe No
X
b. Reduction of ~xe numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plan~ into an area of native
vegetation, or in a ba~tle~ m the normal replenishmere of
existing species? _ _ X
d. Reduction in ~he acreage of any a~-iculmral crop? _ _ X
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the divenity of species, or m,mhe~s of any species of
animal.~ (s~3jlnals includes all land animalS, birds, reptiles, fish,
amphibians, shellfish, ben~hic organisms, and/or insects)? __ __ X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, ~hreatened, or
endangered species of animals? _ _ X
c. The introduaion of new wildlife species into an area? __ __
d. A barrier W the migration or movement of ~nim~ds? __ __ X
e. Deterioration W existing fish or wildlife habitat?. _ _
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ..75L _ __
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? __ X
c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? __ X_X_ __
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? X _ __
8. 1 ~.ntl Use. Will the proposal result
a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? _X_
b. Alteration to the future planned lsnd use of an area as described
in a COmm~lnity Or general plan? __ __ X
9. Natursl R~sources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? __ __ X
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? __ __ __X
R:~T~PA95.!~C 5/31/~5 m 25
Yes Maybe No
10. Risk of Upset, Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous
substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticides, chemicals,
oil or radiation)? __ _ X
b. The use, sWrage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic
materials (including, but not limited to oLl, pesticides, chemicals,
or radiation)? __ X
c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan? __ __ X
I 1. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the bnm~n population of an area7 __ X
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand
for additional housing? __ X
13. Transportation/Cifful~,ion. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X __
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including
public transportation? __ __ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? __ __ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? __ __ X
f. increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians? _ X
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of
the following areas:
a. Fire protection? __ __ X
b. Police protection? __ __ X
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmemal services:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial mounts of fuel or energy? __ _
b. Substantial incrca~ in demand upon existin~ sources or energy,
or require the developmere of new sources of anergy? __ __
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need fur new systems, or
substantial alterations to any of the fullowlng utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __
b. Communications systems? __ __
c. Water systems? __ __
d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic r~ntr.~? __ __
e. Storm water drainage systems? X _
f. Solid waste disposal systems? __ _
g. Will the proposal result in a disjoinr~i or inefficient ps~-~ of
utility delivery system improvements fur any of the above? __ _
17. Humsn Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? __ __
b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including
the exposure of sensitive recepwrs (such as hospitals and
schools) to wxic pollutant emissions? __ _
18. Aestheli~s. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? __ __
b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? __ _
c. De~imental visual impacts on the surroundin~ area? _ _
19. Rea~ation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opporumities? _ _
Maybe
27
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, sizucture, or object?
c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Y~ M~t~ No
R:~T~PA~.PC ~/31/95 m 2~
DISCUSSION OF TH~ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1.a.
Yes. The proposal will result in unstable earth comlitiom. The site has been previously graded
and building pads have been created. PoUmtial unstable earth conditions will be mitigated through
the use of landscaping s~l proper compaction of the soils. The landscaping will serve as erosion
conU'ol. The project v/ill not result changes in geologic substructures. Construction and grading
for this development will not be at depths which would affea any geologic substructures. No
significant impacts are foreseen as a result of this projea.
1.b.
Yes. The proposal will result in the disruption, displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the
soil. All grading activity requires some form of disruption, displacement, compaction and/or
overcovering of the soil. Impacts are not considered significant for two primary reasons First, the
site has previously been graded. Second, the amount of disruption, displacement, compaction and
overcovering of the soil for the realization of this project will be minlmn[ No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
].C.
No. The proposal will not resttit in a change in the site topography and ground surface relief
features. The site has already been modified into its current confi~guration, and additional grading
will be nec_oss_ary for the construction of the projea. The amount of grading will be minitoni and
is not considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.d.
No. The proposal will not result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site.
No sigm'ficant impacts are anticipated as a result of this projea.
1.e, f.
Yes, Development of the site will result in increased wind and wa~r erosion of soils both on and
off-site during the construction phase of the projea. The projea proposal will also result in
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a
condition of approval for the project. In the long-m, bardscape and landscaping will serve as
permanent erosion control for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
projea.
1.g.
No. The proposal Will not result in modifications to any wash, channel, creek, river or lake. None
exist on the project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.h.
Yes. Development of the site will expose people and property to earthquake hazards since the
project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. In addition, there is
potential for ground failure and liquefaction in this area. Any potential impacts will be mitigated
through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Soil
report mitigation measures will mitigate the impacts inw insignificant levels.
1.i.
No. The proposal does not include development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as
identified by the State of California, Resource Agency Department of Conservation Special Studies
Zone Map. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~TAF91~J~IPA95.1~C 5/31/95 m 29
Air
2.b.
2.c.
Waler
3.a.
3.b.
3.d.
3.e.
Yes. The projea will result in air emissions both in the short and long-run. Air emissions will
occur during the conslruction phase of the projea. These impacts will be of short duration and are
not considered significaut. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. Air Quality
analysis in the General Plan's Environmental Impact Report shows no significant impact to air
quality at buildout of the City. The nnnlysis was conducted wi~n the assumption that land uses
would be consistent with the General Plan T and Use Desi~nntions. No siguificant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this projea.
No. The project will not result in objectionable odors because of the nature of ~he project. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not result in alterations of air movement, temperature, or moisture, or in any
change in climate either locally or regionally. The scale of the projea precludes it from creating
any significant impacts on the environment in this area.
No. The proposal will not result in changes to currants, to the come or direction of water
movements in either marine or fresh waters. The project site is loot located adjacent to either
mar'me or fresh water sources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and
mount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by
construction of buildings, accompanying bardscape and driveways. Wh'~e absorption rates and
surface runoff will change, impacts are mitigated through site design. Proposed drninnge
conveyances safely and adequately handle the existing runoff and any potential runoff which will
be created by this project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Maybe. The project may result in the alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. The
project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report. The site is also located within the 100 year flood plain as
identified in the FEMA maps. Potential impacts on dam inundation can be mitigated through
utilizing existing emergency response systems and by assuring that these systems continue W
maintain adeq. ate service provision as the City develops. The potential impacts to flooding can
be mitigated through a Flood Development Permit. No significant Impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a change in the mount of surface water in any waterbody.
No major waterbodies are located in the subject project area. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Yes. The proposal will result in discharges inW surface waters and alteration of surface water
quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to
comply with the requirements of the National Polhtant Discharge E]iminntjon Systeln (NPDES)
permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted unffi an
NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with
R:X,$TAFFRFf'~4pA95.PC 5/31/95 m 30
the NPDES requirem=uL~, any pOtnaihl im.n~C~S can be mitigated to a level leas than significant.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this projea.
3 .f,~.
No. The proposal will not result in an alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters.
Consreaction on the s~ will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground
waten. In eddition, ~e proposal will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waten, either
lhrough direct additions, withdrawalS, or through interception of an aqulfer by cuts or excavations.
No significant impacts are anticipged as a result of this project.
3.h.
No. The project will not result in the reduction in the amount of wa~r otherwise available for
public water supplies. Water service currently exists in the v'winity of the project site. Additional
water service will be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD) upon completion of
financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
3.i.
No. The proposal will not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
Reference response 3.c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Plant Life
4.a-d.
No. The projea site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no nntive species of plants,
no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent
to the site. In addition, this property is not currently used as farm land nnd is not identified in the
General Plan as an area of agricultural significance. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts
as a result of this project.
Animal Life
No. The proposed projea is in an area that has been expedench~ urb~niT~tlon for a number of
years. The site is currently graded and there is no indication that any wildlife species exists at this
location. The projea will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the mi~z~jon of
animals or deteriorate existing habitaL The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of
cumulative impacts to the species. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to animal life
as a result of this projea.
Noise
Yes. The proposal will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and
any development of the land would result in increases to noise levels during construction phases
as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. The projea site is located within a
Commercial/Induatrial corridor. There are no sensitive reeeptors locauM in the area. No
sigulficant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the abort or long run.
6.b,c.
Maybe. The projea may expose people to severe noise levels and vibrations during the
developmeat/consu'uction phase (short nm). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise
in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is comidered annoying and can cause hearing damage
from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of abort duration and the site is not
within a residential area; therefore, it will not be considered significant. The exposure to severe
vibrations will be of short duration and will also not be considered significant.
Yes. The proposal will ultimately produce and result in light/glare as all development of this
nature results in new light sources. All light nnd glare has the potential to impact the Mount
Palomar Observatory. The project will be condifioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655
(Ordinance Regulnting Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Land Use
8.a.
Yes. The proposal will alter the present land use of the area, because the site is currently vacant.
When the projea is realized on the site the use of the land will be altered. The proposal is
consistent with the City's General Plan land use designntion for the site which identifies the site as
Business Park (BP). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.
No. The proposal will not result in an alteration to the future planned ]nnd use of the site as
described in the City's General Plan. Reference response 8.a. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
No. The proposal will not result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in
the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s). However, the daily operation and the development of
the site (construction materials, fuels for lumber) will result in an increase in the rate of use of
natural resources and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to
the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
Risk of U~set
10.a,b.
No. The proposal will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances
in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same
is u~e for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or wxic m~erials. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
10.c.
No. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation
plan. The subjea site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan.
The project will take access from a BlalBtnined Street and wil] therefore not impede any emergency
response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Pooulation
ll.
Maybe. The projea may result in altering the location, distribution, demity or ~rowth rate of the
human population of the area because it may create new jobs within the City of Tcmecula. The
creation of new jobs has the potential to cause people to relocate to an area close to their
R:~TAFFIL~T~IPA95.!aC 5~1[95 m 32
employment. Due to the limited scale of the project, it will not result in the relocation of large
numbers of people. No signi~cmt impacts are anticip~ as a result of ~his project.
Housin2
12.
Maybe. Reference response 11. Projects of this nSure do not cause l~rge mnnben of people to
relocate. Additional housing needs may be cresol ss a result of this paniculsr project. However,
no significant impacts are anticip~ as a result of fixis project.
TransDorlation/Cir~_dnfion
13.a.
No. The applicant has submitted a Focused Traffic Study for the projea (prepared by ~ Smith
Associates daled April 18, 1995'). The Focused Traffic Analysis states tha~ impacts from this
projea to the intersection of Winchester Road and Diaz Road will not be greater than five percent
(appro~imnt~-ly ~ percent). The report concludes that lhe~e will be no reduction in the Level of
Service at this intersection during either peak period due to the project. Mitigation measures
including payment of Public Facilities Fee and Signal Mitigation Fee will be included in the
conditions of approval for the project, as approved by the Public Works Deparanent, that will
mitigate any potential impacts from the projea to a level le~s than significant. Therefore, no
significant impacts are expected from development of the site.
13.b.
Yes. The pwject will result in an increased demnnd for new parking. Three hundred sixty-five
(365) parking spaces are requlred under Ordinance No. 348. The projea as proposed includes 393
parking spaces on-site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.c.
No. The proposal will not create impacts upon existing trmmsponafion systems, including public
transportation. The si~e is located adjacent W a fully improved streets (Winchester Rosd, Diaz
Road, and Avenida De Ventas). Rivehide Transit Agency (RTA) Route 23 provides the only
public transportation within the City. A Transportation Demand Mann5ement CFDIVD will not be
required for this project because of the number of employees (under 100 at one shii~). No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.d.
No. The proposal will not result in altersfions to present p~__-__~e~'ns of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods. The projea is locsy. ed adjacent w a fully improved s~rem; there, no
alterations w present palxerns of circulation or movement of people and/Or goods will occur. The
area is also developed with commercial/indusffial uses. Because of ~hese two faaors, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.e.
No. The proposal will not result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air Iraffic since none exim
curren~y in the proximity of the si~ and none are proposed. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this projea.
13.f.
Maybe. The proposal may result in an increase in trat~c hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians. The hazsrds may incresse ss the projea develops due W incress~ activity on the si~e.
These impacts are not seen as significant. lmpscts have been mitiga/~ed to a level less than
significant through the site design, which is consistent with City Stnnd~lS.
33
Public Services
14.a,b.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire
or police protection. The projea will incrementally increase the need for fire snd pOlice protection;
however, it will contribute its fair absre to the msimp~snt.e Of service provision from these entitigs
by paying property taxes ~nd by paying Fire Mitigation Fee. No significant impacts are anticipa~d
as a result of this project.
14.c.
Maybe. The proposal may have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
school facilities. Ref~rw, ce responses No. 11 and 12. The projea may cause significant numbers
of people to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will result in a need for new or altered
school facilities. The projea will be required to pay school mitigation fees prior to the issuance
of building permits to mitigate these impacis. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
14.d.
Maybe. The proposal may have a substantial effect upon or result- in a need for new or altered
parl~ or other recreational facilities as a result of pOtential increased population. Reference
responsas No. 11, 12, and 14.c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.e.
14.f.
Energy
15.a.
15.b.
No. The proposal will not result in aneed for the maimensnce ofpublic facili~es, including roads.
Funding for msint. en~mco of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City
of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for msaintennnce of
roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be
considered significant. This is because the Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed
expenses and the project is not proposing any new public roads.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial affect upon or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. Due to the
scale and nature of the proposed development, impacts are not significant.
No. The project will not result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sourcos of energy,
nor will the project require the development of new sources of energy. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Utilities
16.a
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to pOwer or
natural gas. These systems are currently available to the site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~TAFFRFI~4PA~.I~C 5r]1195 m 34
16.b.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial al~rations ~o
communication systems (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipst__-d as
a result of this project.
16.c.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial altr/aiions to water
systems. l~fr~eace response 3 .h. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.d.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for now systems or substantial elteratiom to sanitary
sewer systems. The project is locau~ within FAstern Municipal Water Districes (EMWD) sanitary
sewer service area. Based upon information coW~ined in the General Plan Environmental Impact
Report, adequate facilities exist (and are proposed) which will ade~p,a~ly service the project. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of tiffs project.
16.e.
Yes. The proposal will result in a need for new systems or substantial alteratiom to on-site storm
water drainage systems. Although the project is considered in-fill, the proposal will need to
provide on-alte dralnsge systems. The drslnage system will be required as a condition of approval
for the project. No significant impac~ are anticipau~l as a result of this project.
16.f.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste
disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid was~ created by this development can be
mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programn which are
implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16.g.
No. The proposal will not result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system
improvements for any of the above. (zd~ence response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Human Health
17.a.b.
No. The proposal will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard.
The County of Riverside Health Services Agency has reviewed the project and its recommendations
shall be included as conditions of appwval for the projea (as per County of Riverside Health
Services Agency transmittal dated May 12, 1995, a copy of which is on file with the planning
Dopanment). In ~ddition, the proposal will not expose people to potential health hazards. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Aesthetics
18.a,b.
No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,
nor in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The project will be
compatible with adjacent development. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
projecL
18.c.
No. The proposal will not result in detrimental visual impacts on the sulrtOnnding area. Reference
response 18.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this projea.
R:XSTAFI~YF~4pA95.]~ 5/31/95 m
35
Recreation
19.
No. The proposal will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational
resources or opportunities. Reference responses No. 11 and 12. The project will not Cause
significant numbers of people to relocate to the City of Temecula sna therefore will not result i~
impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resom~es
20.a.
No. The proposal will not result in the alteration or desmxction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site. According to the City' s ~ Plan Environmental Impact Report,
this project is not located in an area of sensitivity for both archaeological and paleontological
resources. Further, the site has been previously graded and the project will not go beyond the
limits of this grading. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehisWric or hisWric
building, structure or object. Reference response 20.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
20.c.
No. The projea will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values. No unique ethnic cultural values exist on-site or in proximity to the site.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
20.d.
No. The proposal will not result in restrictions to existing religions or sacred uses within the
potential impact area. None currently exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
R:~T~PA95.PC 5/31/95 an
IV. MANDATORY FINDING~ OF S/G~IFiCANCE
Does the project have the potential W either: degrade
the quality of the environm~t, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish, wildlifo or bird species, cause a fish,
wildlifo or bird population to drop below self SUStmining
levels, thP~ to eliminate a plant, bird or ~nims|
species, or eJimingite important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?.
Does the project have the potential to achieve shoxt
term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental
goals? (A short term impact on the environmen~ is one
which occurs in a relatively brid, definitive period of
time while long term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
Does the projea have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate resources may be
relatively small, but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.)
X
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
R:\STAFFRPT~PAg~.PC ~Jt~l/95 m 37
V. DEPARTM~-NT OF FISH AND GAME nDE MINIMUS~ IMPACT FINDINGS
Does the projea have the potential to cause any adverse effect,
either individually or cumulatlvely, on fish and wildlife resources?
Wildlife is defined as 'all wild ~nlmals, birds, plants, fish,
amphibians, and related ecological comm~lnitiel, including the
habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's contirn:ad
viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code).
Y~
ENVIRONMENTAL DKrF_AcMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed projea COULD NOT have a significant effect on
the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case
because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and
in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will
mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance,
end a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find the proposed projea MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Prepared by:
Signature
Name and Title
Date
R:~TAIwI~IPT~34PA95.PC 5/31/95 m 38
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:~TAFFRP'F~4PA95.PC ~/3l/9~ se 40
i
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:I~TAI~RFI'L~PA~.PC ~31/~ an
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0034, MEDICAL DESIGN CONCEPTS
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 5, 1995
ELEVATIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
()
CASE NO. - PA95-0034, MEDICAL DESIGN CONCEPTS
EXHIBIT - D LANDSCAPE PLANS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -JUNE 5, 1995
CITY OF TEMECULA
· ~,"": ~,:. / SITE PLAN
CASE NO. - PA95..0034, MEDICAL DESIGN CONCEPTS
EXHIBIT - C
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 5, 1995
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95..0034, MEDICAL DESIGN CONCEPTS
EXHIBIT- B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 5, 1995
c~P-s
ZONING MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0034, MEDICAL DESIGN CONCEPTS
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 5, 1995
V|C|N|TV ~AP ~
ITEM #5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
June 5, 1995
Planning Application No. 95-0003- Westside Specific Plan, Planning Application
No. 95-0004 - Tentative Tract Map No. 28011, Planning Application No. 94-
0061 - Master Conditional Use Permit, Planning Application No. 95-0031 -
Environmental Impact Report and Development Agreement No. DV95-0001
Prepared By: David Hogan, Associate Planner
Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
This memorandum will serve to address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the
above referenced projects. No new conditions of approval have been prepared. This
memorandum is to be used in conjunction with the packet you received for the May 15, 1995
meeting. Attachments to this memorandum are as follows:
1. Background and Analysis - Blue Page 2
2. Mitigation Measure/Conditions of Approval Matrix - Blue Page 12
3. Resolution No. 95- Final Environmental Impact Report (Planning Application No. 95-
0031 ), Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration and Mitigation
Monitoring Program - Blue Page 18
Resolution No. 95- Westside Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 95-0003)and
Change of Zone - Blue Page 23
Draft Ordinance No. 95- Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temacula
Amending the Official Zoning Map - Blue Page 28
Master Conditional Use Permit (Planning Application No. 94-
5.
6.
7o
8.
9.
Resolution No. 95-
0061)- Blue Page 31
Resolution No. 95-
0004) - Blue Page 36
Tentative Tract Map No. 28011 (Planning Application No. 95-
Resolution No. 95- Development Agreement No. DV95-0001 - Blue Page 41
Responses from Westside Specific Plan Consultant - Blue Page 45
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND
These projects were originally before the Planning Commission on May 15, 1995. At that
meeting, the Planning Commission received presentations from Staff, the project applicants,
and testimony from the public. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing, shared
their concerns and comments with Staff, requested additional clarification on several items,
and continued their deliberations to the June 5, 1995 hearing. The purpose of this Staff
Report is to provide the requested information to the Commission.
ANALYSIS
The Commission's questions and concerns have been organized into the following categories:
· General Comments;
· Master Conditional Use Permit;
· Westside Specific Plan;
· Environmental Impact Report; and,
· Development Agreement.
GENERAL COMMENTS
1. Question: What is the alignment of the Western Bypass Corridor?
Response: The initial alignment that is being used in this process is the preliminary
alignment prepared for the City in 1992. The process for determining the final
alignment and design of the road is currently underway in conjunction with the
development of the Westside Specific Plan.
2. Question: What will be the initial configuration (ie. number of lanes) for the Western
Bypass Corridor?
Response: Four vehicular travel lanes (two lanes per direction) will be necessary from
the Interstate 15/State Route 79 south (I-151SR79s) interchange to the west side of
the proposed Western Bypass Corridor bridge over Murrieta Creek. From that point to
the extension of Vincent Moraga Drive, two vehicular travel lanes (one through lane per
direction) will be adequate to accommodate the generated volume of traffic associated
with the development of the first phase of the Master CUP/Westaide Specific Plan. In
addition, the extension of Vincent Moraga Drive will consist of three lanes (two through
lanes and one turn lane).
3. Queslion: Why does the Western Bypass Corridor stop at Vincent Moraga Drive? Why
isn't it being built all the way to the City of Murrieta as part of this project?
Response: The connection of the Western Bypass Corridor to Rancho California Road
is required to facilitate the movement of vehicular traffic in and around the Old Town
area. The connection to Vincent Moraga is being recommended because it appears to
R:%STAFF~YT~OTI~,PC2 5126~95 klb
3
e
be the most efficient and cost effective solution and adequately mitigates the impacts
of this project on the City circulation system. There is no valid traffic nexus to require
construction of the entire and ultimate alignment of the Western Bypass Corridor to
Murrieta. It is expected that other segments of the Western Bypass will be added in
the future as needed to support other development projects and as additional funding
is available. All phases of the Western Bypass Corridor are included in the Capital
Improvement Program.
Question: Are traffic signals going to be installed at Vincent Moraga?
Response: According to the initial traffic study, developing the first phase of.the
Master CUP/Westside Specific plan will not necessitate installation of traffic signals at
the intersection of Vincent Moraga Drive and Rancho California Road.
Question: What is the phasing, timing and size of the road improvements, especially
the interface with the County on Assessment District 159 {AD 159)?
Response: The traffic study prepared for the Old Town Redevelopment Project has
recommended that all of the required roadway improvements (I-15/SR79s Interchange,
the Extension of First Street, and the Western Bypass Corridor) be complete before the
private entertainment venues are open.
These improvements are described in the Traffic Engineer's report dated October 28,
1994and consistent with the Assessment District's proposed improvements to SR-79s
and the Interstate 15 ramps. All of these needed roadway improvements are all
currently in the design and/or Caltrans approval processes. It is anticipated that the
I O-month construction period the Western Bypass will begin in early 1996.
Additional long term travel, transition, and turn lanes will be added as they are needed.
The exact timing and funding sources for these future improvements can not be
determined at this time. These long term improvements may include the construction
of loop ramps to replace the current diamond interchange at I-15/SR-79s.
Question: What will be the effects of road widening on properties along Pujol, Main,
and First Streets?
Response: The City will need to acquire the additional right-of-way for First Street,
near the current intersection with Front Street and west of Pujol Street. The future
First Street will consist of 4 vehicular travel lanes with bicycle lanes. The widths and
configurations of Pujol and Main Streets are not expected to change. The extension
of First Street will affect the owner of vacant commercial property (the City
Maintenance Yard) at the southwest corner of Front and First Streets and the owner
of a 12-unit apartment building at the intersection of Pujol and First Streets.
MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Question: What are the timing and approval processes for the subsequent
development permits under the Master Conditional Use Permit?
R:\STAFFt~T~OTRP.PC2 5/26/95 Idb 4
Response: According to the Ordinance creating the Master Conditional Use Permit
process, the Director of Planning has the authority to approve all subsequent
development permits (plot plans) for the uses listed in the approved Master Conditional
Use Permit. However, the Director of Planning does have the discretion to forward
potentially significant project components to the Commission for their consideration.
At this time, it is expected that the larger project components will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission for their consideration.
Question: What will happen to the historic buildings? Will they be preserved?
Response: It is anticipated that the project will not affect any of the historic buildings
in Old Town. However, if any of the identified historic buildings are proposed to be
removed or relocatsd, the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan would require the review
and approval of the Planning Commission. The historic preservation provisions are
contained in Section III of the Old Town Specific Plan.
Question: When will all phases of the development be constructed; is there a
schedule? How does the construction of the facilities correspond to the provision and
timing of the infrastructure and affect traffic in Old Town and Citywide? How would
they be built in relation to the other components of the project and how it relates to
those components located in the Westside Specific Plan?
Response: According to the Environmental Impact Report, all of the Phase-I
entertainment venues (those listed in the Master Conditional Use Permit and the Wild
West Arena) and the Phase I infrastructure will be completed at the same time. While
the exact schedules for the private entertainment venues are not available at this time,
the applicant has stated a desire to open for business in October 1996.
10. Question: Are the Town Square and Quickdraw Competition in the same area?
Response: No. The Town Square and Quickdraw Competition Area are different
facilities. They may (or may not) be located close to each other.
11. Question: Will the Town Square be centrally located in Old Town?
12.
Response: It is Staff's expectation that the Town Square will be centrally located.
During the review of the subsequent development projects Staff will review the
interrelationship of all buildings and the Town Square to ensure that it is centrally
located and creates a desirable public space.
Comment: Provide conceptual sketches of exteriors and the layout/interrelationship of
the facilities.
Response: In early 1994, the applicant had conceptual sketches prepared for the
proposed entertainment venues. Because these sketches were very preliminary, it is
expected that the final appearance of these facilities will change. Final drawings and
site locations will be required during the Subsequent Development Permit review
process. The previously prepared conceptual drawings will be available for the
Commission's review at the June 5, 1995 meeting.
R:~'TAFFI!~T~OTFP.PC2 Sl2e/gS klb 5
13. Comment: Provide more information on bus parking and circulation.
14.
Response: The parking and circulation concept-for the project assumes primary
access to Old Town via the I-15/SR-79s interchange. Traffic would be directed from
this interchange up either Front Street or the Western Bypass Corridor to public parking
facilities. Local visitors would probably access Old Town via Santiago Road. Shuttle
buses or trams would ferry visitors from the parking lots to the core of Old Town and
the site of the Arena.
Question: Will the development interrupt the existing business? How can interruptions
be avoided?
Response: Some disruption to existing businesses is expected to occur during project
construction. City staff will work to reduce the expected disruption to local businesses
and residences and to ensure continued community and visitor access to Old Town.
15. Question: Will the undergrounding of utilities in Old Town be included?
Response: The proposed streetscape program for Old Town will include the
undergrounding of existing utilities.
WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN -
16. Comment/Question: Provide more information on the design and architectural character
of the proposed Wild West Arena. Will the tent be permanent? How does it fit in with
the Specific Plan? Can it be put farther into the hill to keep it lower and less visible?
Response: To be provided by the applicant at the June 5th meeting.
17. Comment: Provide more information on the berm and sound walls. More specifics are
needed.
Response: Please reference Attachment No. 9, Response No. 1.
18. Comment: Provide more information on the stables, the housing of animals and odor
control/prevention.
Response: To be provided by the applicant at the June 5th meeting.
19. Question: Why isn't a parking structure being considered?
Response: Parking structures have been considered during the project development
phase of this project. However, they have been eliminated as options because of their
higher costs and the relative abundance of locations for surface parking. Parking
structures may be considered at a later date when land prices and the demand for
additional parking support their use.
20. Comment/Question: Address the issues of General Plan Land Use Consistency. Why
isn't a General Plan Amendment being required?
R:\STAFFRFT~OTRP,PC2 5/26/95 klb S
Response: The project area lies within a Specific Plan Overlay as identified in the City
of Temecula General Plan. This designation allows for flexibility in the development of
specific plan areas. A specific plan is a document that contains tailored land use,
zoning and development standards. Staff reviewed the uses proposed in the Westside
Specific Plan for General Ran consistency (i.e., a hotel/motel, assorted commercial
uses, recreation facilities and parking lots are likely to be allowed in the Business Park
designation}.
Based upon this, staff believes that the necessary findings of consistency can be made
and that a General Plan Amendment is not needed. However, if the Commission would
feel more comfortable, staff could incorporate additional Land Use Map modifications
into the anticipated Land Use Plan clean-up (General Plan Amendment) process that will
occur as part of the Consistency Zoning process.
21. Comment: Service Stations in Area A are not appropriate.
22.
23.
Response: Staff would support the removal of Service Stations from the list of
permitted uses in Area A.
Question: What is planned (not the permitted uses but actually planned) in Planning
Area A, the Tourist Support Commercial?
Response; According to the applicant, a 4,800 seat Wild West Arena, an 350 room
hotel, approximately 50,000 square feet of arena and hotel support commercial, and
approximately 1,700 parking spaces are planned in this area.
Comment: Concerns with Planning Area D; including: the impacts to wildlife and
vegetation, grading and large cut surfaces required to create the buildable areas, and
the visual impacts on the escarpment. Maybe an alternative land use, either a lower
density of residential or an open space (no density) designation would be better.
Response: The potential environmental concerns with the proposed development in
Planning Area D are shared by Staff. The applicant of the Westside Specific Plan has
stated that development in this Area is needed to help spread the anticipated costs of
the Western Bypass over a larger number of properties. If the Commission is
concerned with the extension of urban land uses into this area, Staff suggests that the
Commission recommend Alternative 5.4, Modified Westside Specific Plan to the City
Council. This alternative would reduce the impacts the Coastal Sage Scrub
communities by about 20% and would ensure continued wildlife linkages to the Santa
Margarita River Gorge wildlife area.
24. Question: Is a park facility required within Planning Areas C or D?
Response: The Westside Specific Plan requires that 150 square feet of common open
space to be provided for each unit in Planning Areas C & D. In addition, the EIR
identified the need for additional recreational facilities in this area. This requirements
will be implemented when specific development proposals for these Planning Areas are
submitted to the City.
R:~STAFFI!~T%OTRP,pC2 5/26/95 Idb 7
25. Question: Should there be specific colors for the arena and tent structure? What
about the color and size of flags and banners?
Response: According to the applicant, the top of the arena will not be striped and the
color will blend in with the background. The applicant will prepare a color palette for
the flags and pennants associated with the arena.
26. Comment/Question: Noise impacts on Pujol Street from Planning Area A. Are specific
separation distance requirements needed?
Response: Please reference Attachment No. 9.
27. Comment: Entry monuments on the Western Bypass should be closer to Front Street.
Response: The entry monuments are included within the boundaries of the Westside
Specific Plan. Locating entry monuments outside of the prqject would require either
use of public right-of-way or require additional property acquisition on the part of the
applicant for the Westside Specific Plan.
28. Comment: Need to make sure that the pedestrian network connects under the
freeway, and north and south of project area.
Response: Sidewalks will be included with all road improvements. These road
improvements will connect to other parts of the City.
29. Question: Can the landscaping in Planning Area A include larger trees?
Response: If the Commission is concerned about this issue, the conditions of approval
can be modified to require larger trees.
30. Question: Should Condition of Approval//28 (Westside Specific Plan) read "east side"
or "west side"?
Response: The condition applies to both sides of the Western Bypass Corridor.
31. Question: Will the open space will be maintained by the City or owner?
Response: Maintenance of open space will be determined on the basis of whether it
is public or private open space. All public open space will be maintained by the City
of Temecula or other agency that has possession of the property {i.e., the Open Space
in Planning Area F of the Westside Specific Plan). All private open space will be
maintained by the property owner.
32.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Question: Why are there differences between the EIR and proposed project(s)? (eg.
Page 3, No. 8:50,000 + 50,O00square feet (1 00,000s.f.) of commercial in Planning
Area A; Page 2: includes the Showboat; the "sidewalk improvements" .)
R:~STAFFlivl~OTI~.PC2 5/28/95 Idb 8
33.
34.
Response: There are several reasons for differences in the project details between the
EIR and the Master CUP and Westside Specific Plan. The EIR is based upon the project
concept from July 1994 (which included a showboat theater). Since that time, some
minor project details have changed and shifted. Secondly, the two applications being
considered by the Commission do not include all of the eventual public and private
components that were integrated into the EIR. The EIR was prepared to include all of
the possible improvements, uses, and structures that might be expected to occur as
part of this project; that is why the project description includes so many items.
Comment: Provide a comparative matrix of the Mitigation Measures and Conditions
of Approval.
Response: A table with this information has been included as Attachment No. 2. The
Table cross references the identified mitigation measures with the conditions of
approval for each of the three projects. It also describes to which other future project
approvals or City actions the measure is attributable to.
Question: Where is the location of the vernal pools mentioned in the Department of
Fish & Wildlife's letter contained in the EIR?
Response: The letter from the Department of Fish & Wildlife was a general areawide
statement that these issues are located in and around the project area. The EIR
consultant has consulted with end provided detailed maps to the U. S. Fish & Wildlife
Service (USFWS) on the exact location of this project. As a result, USFWS is no longer
concerned with vernal pool habitats or species for this project.
The USFWS also expressed concern with the possibility of finding the Arroyo Toad and
Southwestern Pond Turtle onsita. After the appropriate studies were performed, the
site was determined to not be suitable for the Arroyo Toad. However, the
Southwestern Pond Turtle was found in Murrieta Creek. As e result, appropriate
mitigation measures have been included in the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program.
35. Question: What are the Southwestern Pond Turtle habitat requirements?
Response: The Southwestern Pond Turtle is found in riparian areas with year-round
water and deep pools. The habitat requirements include soft channel bottoms, periodic
inundation by storm flows, and native riparian vegetation. Occupied Pond Turtle
habitat was identified in the area where the Western Bypass is proposed to cross
Murrieta Creek.
The mitigation proposed in this EIR to offset the loss of approximately 1.0 acre of poor
quality channel habitat is to create a comparable amount of soft channel bottom habitat
within the Murrieta Creek channel, or in the Santa Margarita River channel downstream
of the confiuence of Temecula and Murrieta Creek. Prior to constructing the Western
Bypass Bridge, a search for Southwestern Pond Turtles will be conducted end if any
are found, they will be removed to adjacent habitat during construction. Following
completion of the bridge and establishment of the compensation riparian habitat these
areas will become available for use by the Pond Turtles with no net loss of habitat.
36. Question: What is the status of the Arroyo Toad and date regarding its presence?
37.
Response: The Arroyo Toad occurs in washes, streams and arroyos of southern
California. It occupies sandy banks along these riparian corridors. The probability of
this species occurring within the project area is considered low to moderate. However,
within the areas of impact in Murrieta Creek no sandy bank habitat occurs. Further,
during the detailed survey for the presence of Southwester Pond Turtle, no Arroyo
Toads were identified. As a result, it was concluded that this species probably does
not occur within the project's impact area.
Questions/Comment: Who is responsible for the trams? The applicant or the City? The
same question applies for other items discussed in the Mitigation Measure Program.
Response: At this time, it is expected that the project proponent/applicant will be
responsible for the operation of all the entertainment venues and related support
facilities, such as the tram service.
38. Question: Why was vehicle ridership assumed to be 3.0 per ride?
Response: The traffic impact forecast assumed that average vehicle ridership to all
entertainment facilities would be 3.0 persons per vehicle (see Project Trip Generation
assumptions on pages 26-29 of the "Site Traffic Impact Analysis of the Proposed Old
Town Redevelopment Project - Phase 1" prepared by Barton-Aschman Association, Inc.
and provided as part of Volume 2 of the EIR). This assumption is based on vehicle
ridership data from similar entertainment facilities at other locations.
In addition, the jobs/housing balance estimate was based on a forecast of new
population that could be added to the area as a result of implementing the proposed
project. The new population estimate was 2,080 persons. Based on average
household size in Temecula, this equates to a demand for approximately 700 new
residences. Assuming 2,400jobs, the jobs (~2,400)to housing demand (-700)ratio
for the proposed project is 3.4:1 (2,400/700 -- 3.428). This is a highly positive
jobs/housing balance that will contribute to raising the ratio of the region to 30 by the
year 2010. See page 4-22 of the EIR.
39. Question: What does "should not increase cumulative water resource use" mean?
Response: The statement means that the projected water use for this project will not
significantly increase regional water use. An analysis of the water use for the
proposed project shows that it will use less water than the generalized land uses
shown on the City's General Plan.
40. Question: Who monitors the idling of vehicles?
Response: Mitigation measure 4.2.3.5 requires that construction equipment not be left
to idle more than 15 minutes. First, the construction contract must include this
requirement and the contractor is required to observe it or face contract penalties. This
component is monitored by the City reviewing the construction contract and verifying
that the 15 minute idling clause is included in the contract.
R:\STAFFI~T~OTI~.PC2 5/28j95 Idb 10
41.
Actual field monitoring is accomplished by City inspectors and enforcement personnel
conducting random monitoring when they visit the site for routine inspections. They
will note which equipment is idling and how long it idles. If violations of the mitigation
requirement are noted, then the City will direct the developer to enforce the clause
contained in the construction contract.
Querdon/Comment: Should them be any distance or location criteria for the required
employee day care facility? The day care facility should be centrally located.
Response: Staff concurs with the Commission's future location of the required daycare
facility. While centrally locating the facility is desirable, it is not critical. It is more
important to ensure that the future daycare facility is conveniently located for the
project employees. These factors will be considered during the review and approval
process of the proposed facility.
42.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Question: What is the term of the agreement going to be?
Responae: The term of the Development Agreement will be ten (10) years.
R:\STAFFI~rr%OTRP,PC2 5/26/95 Idb 1 I
A'i'I'ACHMENT N0.2
MITIGATION MEASURES/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MATRIX
12
": I s
,...,o "" "- ==IE i
~,,, ,..-'~o ~.,.-,= ~o"'
~'~'=~u ~.'~: o o ,-
LLI ..h, -s~}~
..
× _ ,,m,
E: '(
(. 0
~ n-'
EL
.~ I~.
0 0
o ~ "' ~
Z Z c~l
z ~ z
< 0 _a_ E~ Ln O~
~ uJ
,,~ n~ ~- ,P. ,m. ~- ~ ,~- IN BI
o ,m, ,- -_. ,- ,- ,- ,- ,-
.,j
,-., .-
13
0
LL
0
~/~
Z I--
0
I--
0
(J
~ uJ~__j
uJ
14
E
Z
:-<~
z,,,
LUa~
O~
~U
o
15
Z,,,
Z,,,
OD
n'C/)
cot-ram o,-,_
o
o_
16
17
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 95-__
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, RNDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 9~
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PIANNING COMlV~.~$ION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECUIA RECOMMENDING THAT ~ CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 9t~0eal (FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT) ADOPTING FINDINGS OFFACT AND STATEMENTS
OF OVEILRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING ~
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY GENEILA~ .~ .Y
LOCATED WEST OF IN'rI~STATE 15, FAST OF ~ C1TY'S
WESTERN BORDER, SOUTH OF RANCHO C~I.I~ORNIA ROAD AND
NORTH OF THE, SANTA MARGARITA RIVER
W!~I~AS, Tom Dodson and Associates completed planning Application No. 95-0031
(Final Environmental Impact Report) under City's direction and in accordance with the City and
State CBQA Guidelines;
W/Ik'~EAS, said n ~ application was processed in the time and manner pl~P~'ribed by
State and local hw;
WHEREAS, the planning Commission considered ,~aid Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) which includes the Draft nTR, the Technical Appendices, the Response to
Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Progr3m~ Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding
Considerations on May 15, 1995, at which time interested persons had an opportunity w testify
either in support or opposition;
~, the planning Commi.~sion continued thin item at their May 15, 1995
meeting to June 5, 1995;
WtIEREAS, the plnnning Comminsion considered said Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) which includes the Draft I~R, the Technical Appendices, the Response to
Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Prog~m~ Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding
Considerations on Jane 5, 1995;
~, at the conclusion of the Planning Comminsion heaxing, the planning
Commission recommended Certification of the said FI~I, Adopted the Findings of Fact and
Statements of Overriding Consideration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
NOW, T~I~RIPORE, ~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMI.qSION
DOES RF-qOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ~ That the City of Temecuh planning Comminsion in recommending
CenLfication of the proposed l~kmK, makes the following Findings of Fact and Statements of
Overriding Considerations set forth on Exhibit A, atnched hereto and incorporated herein as set
forth in full, to wit:
R:~h'~L='nOT~.~C2 SiZeS ~ 19
Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula plnnnln~ Commlnsion hereby
recommends cel'd~cation of Plnnning Application No. 95-0031 (FEIR), adopts Findings of Fact
and Statements of Overriding Considea~on and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program
(Exhibit B) for the Old Town Elltertninment Project which incltld~ the lVlastex Conditional U$~
Permit, the Westside Specific Plan, and subsequent d~velopment propo~!s within these m'~as
including but not limited to Development Agreement No. DV95-0001.
Seetion 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of June, 1995.
S'ri~v'EN L FORD
CHAIRMAN
I ttEREIIy CERTIFY th3t the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a re, tint meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of June,
1995 by the following vot~ of the Comminsion: - ·
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNBTf
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
(PROVIDED WITH MAY 15, 1995 STAFF REPORT)
EXHIBIT B
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
(PROVIDED WITH MAY 15, 1995 STAFF REPORT)
A'I'FACHMENT NO. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 95-
WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN AND CHANGE OF ZONE
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 95-__
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMi~.~SION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 95-0003 (WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN) AND
CHANGING ~ ZONE FROMR-A-20 0~-~IDEIVIIAL AGRICULTURAL
- TWENTY ACRE MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE) TO SPECWIC PLAN ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF PUJOL STREET, EAST
OF ~ CITY'S WESTERN BORDER SOUTH OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE,
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 940310-013, 940320-
001, 940320-002, 940=320-003, 940-320-004, 940-320-005, 940-320-006 AND
940-320-007
WIIEREAS, Hancock Development Company filed planning Application No. 95-0003
in accordnnce with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and
Subdivision Ordinance~q, which the City ha~ adopted by reference;
VVI:HERFAS, planning Application No. 95-0003 was processed in the time and marmOt
prescribed by State and local law;
Vt/tfI~_J~iS, the planning Commitsloll colls~ planning Applicatioll No. 95-0003 on
May 15, 1995, 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;
ViHEREAS, the planning Commission continued planning Application No. 95-0003 at
their meeting on May 15, 1995 to June 5, 1995;
~, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, ff any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commi,~sion considered all facts
relalhlg to planning Application No. 95-0003;
NOW, TB~IRI~J~ORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TIMECIlIA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are flue and correct.
Seefion 2. Ei~ The planning Commils~iOn in ~mtmding approval of Planning
Application No. 95-0003, makes the following flpdinL~, to wit:
1. The project as condi~oned is consilent with the goals, policies, and
implementation programs contained in the General Plan. The pwject is consistent with the
General Plan Specific Plan Area Overhy. The Genentl Plan requires: "in areas identified as
Specific Plan Overhy, with an aggregate area of 100 or more acres, approval of a specific plan
is required prior to approval of any discretionary land use en~tielllent or issuance of any building
or grading permit.' Further, the General Plan key objectives for thi~ Specific plan Area are to:
"provide complementary land uses to Old Town that increase the vitality of the a~a and to
increase the range of housing oppormn~ies west of 1-15. ' The West,~de Spec~c Plan
land uses that support thee objectives. Tha projea will preserve signifi~mt open space
Approximately 67.4 ~ross acres of the slopes west of the Western Bypass Conidor (Westside
Parkway), east of the City Limit will remain in an open space de~, with no development
proposed on the site. Goal 5 of the Open Space/Conservation Element of the City's General
plan calis for "Conservation of open space areas for a b~lance of recreation, scenic enjoyment,
and protection of natural resources and features.*
2. Theprojectis~withGovernmentCodeSection65450. The Specific Plan
cont~ing the information required under Article 8 of the Government Code, and meets the intent
of the Specific Plan as defined by state law.
3. The project will result in ~e construction of General plan Roads and offier
infrastructure. The Western Bypass Corridor is identified in ~e General Plan as the "Westside
Parkway,' a Secondary Highway. Fix~ Street is also identified in the Circulation plan as a
Principal Collector. The ~ Final ]:~lvironmental Impact Repol~ and subsequent
development pwpo~k for thlg project will require that the ponious of these wads that will be
affected by this project be built as mitigation for the project. Additional infrastructure
improvements including, but not limited W, storm drajjl improvelnents, water and sewer
improvements, and other utilities will need to be completed as pan of thk project.
4. The projea, as conditioned, will have adequate access. The Cim~lation Plan
within the Westside Specific Plan provides vehic-lar access W the project slto from the Western
Bypass Corridor (Westside Parkway), Vincent Moraga Drive and First Su'eet. Pedestrian access
is provided throughout the project site, along the projects' roads, as well as from Main Street.
Additional access to the site shall be by tran.~it service.
5. The projea is compatible wiffi surrounding land uses. The Specific Plan covt~in~
adequate provisions that will buffer sensitive uses from non-sensitive uses.
6. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with thi~ application and herein incorporated by reference.
a. As condiU'oned pursuant to Section 4, Plannin~ Application No. 95-0003,
as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and weftare of the community.
Sectinn 3. Environmental Compliance. The City of Temocuia Planning Commksiou
hcreby rocommends ccrtifica~oll of FI~T~ Planning Application No. 95-0031, adopts Findings
of Fact and Statements of Oveniding Consideration and approves of the Mitiration Monitoring
Program for the Old Town ]~lltertginment Pzoject which includes the Westside Specific Phn and
subsequent development proposals within this al~a.
R:~'r.~FR?~OTRE'.Z'C2 sr~g5 lab 25
Section 4. Conditions. That tile City Of Tel~ecI/]a PbannlnS Commi-~sion hereby
recommends approval of P|nnnlng ApplicatiOD No. 95-0003 to cbaJ3gc the ZA'mln_.P on 154.1 acr~
Of ]and from R-A-20 (ReBidet~nl ~ - Twenty Acre l~Tinlmum Parcel Size) to Specific
Plan on propcn~ generally located west of Pujo] Street, cast of thc Ci~ of Tcmecu]a' Western
border, south of Ridge Park Drive and known as Assessor' s Parcel Numbers 940-310-013, 940-
320-001,940-320-002, 940-320003, 940-320-004, 940-320-005, 940-320-006 and 940-320-007
subject to the following conditions:
A. Bxhihit A, allached
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED thi.~ 5th day of June, 1995.
STItV'EN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I ITImERy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commi,~sion of thc City of Temecula at a re, fist meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of June,
1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNm~J-
SBCI~fARY
a:~r~a, no'r~.x~n sr2~ss ~h 26
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95-0003 (WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN)
(PROVIDED WITH MAY 15,' 1995 STAFF REPORT)
27
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 95-
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING THE OFRCIAL ZONING MAP
ATTA~ NO. $
ORDINANCE NO. 95-
AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA, C,~Ln~ORNIA, AMENDING Tm~-OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
OF S~m ~ ~ ~ ~GE OF ~ ~CA~ON CO~
~ ~G ~CA~ON NO. 9~, ~G~G ~ ~
~OM R-A-20 ~~ AG~~ - ~ A~
~ P~ Sl~ ~ S~C ~ ON ~0~
G~LLY ~CA~ ~T OF ~JOL S~T, ~T OF ~
C~'S ~~ ~ SO~ OF ~E P~ D~, ~
~O~ ~ ~S~SOR'S P~C~ ~~ ~31~, ~32~1,
9~32~, ~32~3, ~32~, ~32~5, ~2~ ~ ~
32~
CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF 'r!~fECUIA, STATE OF
CAI,n~ORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOL~0WS:
Section 1. Public hearings have been held before the Pl~nnln~ Commlasion and City
Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the planning arid Zoning law
of the State of C-~llfo~ia~ and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The application ]and use
district as shown on the attached e~hihit is hexeby appmved and ratified as part of the Officla]
Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as many be mended
hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of
Tcmccula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described
in plannin~ Application NO. 95-0003 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning ~
aRached hereto and incorporated hm-ein.
Section 2. Notice of Adoption. within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk
of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of thig ordinance and cause it to be posted
in at least thre~ public places in the City.
Section 3. Taking Effect. This ordinanc~ shall take effect 30 days after the date of its
adoption.
Section 4. 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 sprnm~'y of this Ordinance a~d a ce~i~ed copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall
be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of
Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Oldinance, the City Clerk ~hll pobli.~h a
summary of thi.~ Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmenlbers voting for and
against the Ordinance, ~ post the same in the offico of the City Clerk.
29
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED thi~ day of ,
Leg_.
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
ATTHST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CAI-r~ORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TPiM~CULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Tcmecula, California; do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 __ was duly introduced and placed upon its tint reading at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 199__, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the __ day of , by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCU MZEMBERS
COUN~EP, S
COUNCU3~I]~VIBERS
June S. Cacek, City Clerk
R:',STAFFRFnOTm'.Z'C2 5~S,'95 ~, 30
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 6
RESOLUTION NO. 95-__
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0061
MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
R:x,TrAFFRP~O~'~e.~'C2 SD~SS klb 31
ATrACItMENT NO. 6
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ ufrY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 94-(}061 FOR A MASTER CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO PERMIT CABARET Tm~.&TERS (2), SALOONS (2), AN
OPERA HOUSE, TV/RADIO STATION, VIRTUAL REALITY Ti~TERS
(2), A QUICK DRAW AREA, ADMINISTRATIVE AND TIClCET OFFICES
IN AN AREA GENER~T.T,Y BOUNDEn BY SIXTH STR~'~,T TO ~
NORTH, FIRST STRI~.T TO ~ SOUTH, MUI~w. TA CRI~J~ TO ~
WEST AND INTERSTATE 1~ TO ~ EAST
~, -x-z~BG filed planning Application No. 940061 in accordance with the City
of Tcmecula Genual Plan and Riverside County 1 -~nd Use and Subdivision Ortlln:~nCe~, which
the City has adopted by reference;
WI~'~EAS, planning Application No. 94-0061 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local hw;
~, the planning Comminsion considered planning Application No. 94-0061 on
May 15, 1995, 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;
~, the Planning Comminsion continued Planning Application No. 940061 at
theft May 15, 1995 meeting to lune 5, 1995;
~, at the public hearing, upon heating and considuing all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desuving to be heard, the Comminsion considered all facts
r~laling to planning Application No. 94-0061;
NOW, ~RE, TUJ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ Crr!( OF
TEMECUIA DOES !~EQOLVE, DETERIVHNE AND ORDER AS FOIJOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are uue and correct.
Section 2. EiRaiag~ The planning Commi-qion, in recommeDding approval Ofphnnlng
Application No. 940061 maires the foliowing findings:
1. The proposed Mas~r Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the City's General
Plan, the development code, and applicable specific plans. Ordinance No. 94-19 was adopted
by the City Council to permit Master Conditional Use permits within the City of Tomecula.
planning Application NO. 94-0061 will facilitate development in Old Town Temecula and
implement The Old Town Temecula Specific Plan. This is an extension of Land Use Element
Goal No. 6 which called for "A Plan for Old Town that enhances the economic viability,
tn~serves historic slxuctures, addresses parking and public improvement needs, and establishes
design sUmdards to enhance and malntnln the character and economic viability of Old Town."
Further, upon appwval of the Master CUP, and submlt~l of subsequent development plato ~
specific sites, the plan~ will be reviewed by the Old Town Local Review Board for consistency
with the Old Town Specific Plan.
2. The pwposed Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with a signed
memorandum of undemand~g or development agreement between the City and a private party.
A Memorandum of Understsnding was executed between the City of Tcmecula and TZBG on
January 31, 1995. The Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with this Memorancinm of
Understanding. No development agreement is applicable to thi~ fwdlng.
3. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit will result in a tangible and
substantial public benefit. The pwject p. oposes cabaret theatexs (2), saloons (2), an open
house, TV/radio station, vimial reality rheateE (2), a quick draw area, admlni.~a~ve and ticket
offices. These developments will enhance and malntnln the character and econoBiic viability of
Old Town, by attracting patrons and consumeis to the axeas.
4. The proposed Master Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the naiql'e,
condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structux~ and that the proposed
conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildingS, and smictures. Upon
approval of the Master CUP, and submittal of subsequent development plans at specific sites,
the plans will be re~riewed by the Old Town Local Review Board for consistency with the Old
Town Temecula Specific Plan. This will insuro that the project wffi be consistent with the
nature, condition and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and that the
proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, and swuctores.
5. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parldng and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping,
and other development fesmres prescribed in the ZOning Ordinance. Upon approval Of the
Master CUP, and submittal of subsequent development phns at specific sites, the phns witl be
reviewed by the Old Town Local Review Board for consistency with the Old Town Temecuh
Specific plan: This Will insure that the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape
to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, pal'k~g and loading facilities, buffer areas,
landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Old Town Temecuh Specific
Plan.
6. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan
and the Old Town Temecnla Specific Plan. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been
certified and the impacts of the project as hid out have been mitigated.
(1) As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. 94-0061
as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with
the present and future development of the surrounding property.
~:,sr, u,l~umo-r~.~:::~ sr~s~ ~b 33
Section 3. Environmultal Conlplianee. The City of Temecuht pl~nnin~ Cornmlgsion
hereby recommencLs celfi~cafioll of ~I~I R, Planning Appfica~on No. 95-0031, adopts Findings
of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and approves of the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the Old Town Entertainment Project which includes the Master Conditional Use
Permit and subsequent development proposals wjthln the area.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula PianninE Commi.~sion.hereby
approves planning Appfication No. 94-0061 to permit cabaret theaters (2), saloons (2), an opera
house, TV/radio station, virtual reality theaters (2), a quick draw area, adminiftnfive and ticket
offices, and a town square/plaTa in an area generally bounded by Sixth Street to the nozth, First
Street to the South, Muftieta Creek to the west and Interstate 15 to the east subject to the
following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached het-~3.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTI~ thin 5th day of June, 1995.
STEVI~ I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I RIq~l~.Ry CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of June,
1995 by the following vote of the Cornmigsion:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOF, S:
PLANNING COMMISSIONI~,S:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNlqH
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING APPLICATION NO, 94-0061 (MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
(PROVIDED WITH THE MAY 1 S, 1995 STAFF REPORT)
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 95-0004
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28011
36
A'rrACIIMENT NO. 7
PC I~v-eOLLVI~ON NO.
A REgOLUTION OF TRI?. PLANNING COMMISSION OF TRI?. CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. 950004 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28011) TO
SUBDIVIDE 154.1 ACI!~-~ INTO NINE (9) PARCEL~ ON PROPERTY
GENEI~LLY LOCATED WEST OF PUJOL STI~EET, EAST OF ~
CITY'S WESTERN BORDER SOUTH OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S pARCEl, NUMBERS 940-310-013, 940-320-001,
940-320-002, 940-320-003, 940-320-004, 940-320-005, ~M0-320-006 AND 940-
320-007
~, Bancock Development Company flied planning Applicatien No. 95-0004
(Tentative Tract Map No. 28011) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Riverside County l ~-d Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by
reference;
WI:IERFAS, planning Application No. 95-0004 (Tenmtlve Tract Map No. 28011) was
processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
~, the Planning Comminsion considered planning Applicaliafi No. 95-0004
(Tentative Tract Map No. 28011) on May 15, 1995, 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;
Vtq:[ER. EAS, the planning COmmission continued planning Application No. 95-0004 at
their May 15, 1995 meeting to June 5, 1995;
VvIER.EAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te.~mony and
arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, said Commission considered all facts
relating to planning Application No. 95-0004 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011);
NOW, Tm~.':REFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECUIA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOI-IOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~ That the Temecuh planning Commi.sion hete~y makes the
foliowing findings:
1. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the proposed land
division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The subdivision is consistent
With the City' s Gellel-al Phil and the pEo~osed Westside Specific Phll (Planning Application No.
95-0004).
a:~rrxnL,,ncrrz~.~c2 srJ~s k~ 37
2. The site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of
development and the design of the proposed land division is not likely to cause serious health
problems. The project as condi~oned is congiqelR with the City's CJew~val Plan, the State
S~bdl'vision ~ap Act, O/~inanP~ NO. 460, and the proposed Westside Specific Plan (p]annlm~
Application No. ~-000~); thex~by, it is assured m be suitable for the type of development and
not cause serious health problems.
3. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely
tO cause substav~al envinmmantal damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat. The l~inal ]~nvil~nmelltal ImpaCt for thi,~ p/oject hal been ce~ified and any
impacts thai were identified in the l~BIR will be mitigated to a level less than significant.
4. The design of the proposed land division or the type of impwvements will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, pwperty
within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved' if it is found that alternate
easements for access or for use will be provided and tl~t they wffi be substantially equivalent
W ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only tO easements of
record or tO easements established by judgment of a cou~ of competent jurisdiction.
A. As conditioned pursuant tO Section 4, Planning Application No. 95-0004, as
proposed, conforms tO the logical developmere of its pwposed site, and is compatible with the
health, safety and welfare of the community.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City of Temecula planning Commission
hereby recommends certification of l~'~E~ Planning Application No. 95-0031, adopts Findings
of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration and approves of the Mitigation MonitOring
Program forthe Old Town Entertainment Project which includes the Westside Specific Plan and
subsequent development proposals (incledlng Planning Application No. 95-004 - Tentative Tract
Map No. 28011) within the area.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula planning Comminsion hereby
recommends approval of Planning Application No. 95-0(04 to subdivide 154.1 acres into nine
(9) parcels generally located west of Pujol Street, east of the City of Temecuh' western border,
south of Ridge Park Drive and known as Assessor' s Parcel Numbers 940- 310-013,940- 320001,
940-320002, 940-320003, 940-320-004, 940-320-005, 940-320-006 and 940-320-007, subjea
W the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and inenxporated herein by thi~ reference and made
a part hereof.
R:~r~w~cyr~.~c2 5~ ~ 38
Section $. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of June, 1995.
S'i'F~XrI~ J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I ~RERy 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 5th day of June,
1995 by the following vot~ of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI-rn
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING APPLICATION NO, 95-0004 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28011)
(PROVIDED WITH MAY 15, 1995 STAFF REPORT)
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DV95-.0001
41
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
~ RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY ~ CITY COUNCIL
OF DEVELOPMENT AGIH~'NIENT, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 9~
0003 (WESTSIDE SPECIHC PLAN) DEVELOPMENT AGImEEMENT NO.
DV9~4M}01
-~'. s: PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ t;IT Y OF TEMECULA DO ES ~ !~.Ry
RESOLVE AS FOIJ~OWS:
WHEREAS, the planning Commi,~sion of the City of Temecula has received an
application for a Development Agreement, Westside Specific Plan, Rancock Development and
lohn F. Firestone Agreement No. DVgS-0001, (hex~inafter "Development Agreement"); and,
~, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on May 15, 1995,
on the issue of recommending approval or denial of the Development Agreement; and
WHERFAS, the planning Commission continued Development Agreement No. DV95-
0001 at their May 15, 1995 meeting to June 5, 1995.
NOW, Tm~!?.I~ORE, 'riir~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF T!~. Crrf OF
TEMECULA DOES FIND AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the planning Commiqion recommends that the City Council appwve
the Development Agreement, in substantially the form of AtUtchment A, attached hereto and
incoxporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. That in recommending the adoption by the City Council of the Development
Agreement the planning Commi,~sion hereby maim, the following findings:
1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general
land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula's General Plan in that the
Development Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of certain real property for
commercial, residential and open space development and is consistent with the General PLan
Land Use Designations for the site; and,
2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the
reguhtions prescribed for, the land use disUict in which the Property subject to the Development
Agreement is located as the Development Agreement pwvides for commercial, residential and
open space development and that this Development Agreement is consistent with good planning
practices by providing for the opportunity to develop the Pxuperty con.~i~tent with the General
Plan; and,
R:~r~lm~aOT~.,C~ SrJs95 ~ 42
B. The Development Agreement is in confo, mity with the public convenience,
general welfare, and good land use practice because it m~kes reasonable pwvision for a bahace
of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City; and,
4. The Development Agn~mcnt will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof; and,
5. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Comminsion was published in
a newspaper of general circ,,h~on at least ten (10) days before the Phnning Commission public
heating, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project
applicant and W each agency expect~ to pwvide water, sewer, schools, police protection, and
fire prom, and to all property ownen within one thousand feet (1,000') of the property as
shown on the late-St eqnaliTed assessment roll; and,
6. Notice of the public heating before the Banning Comminsion included the dam,
time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation of
the matter to be considered, a general description and text or by dla~qllll of the location of the
real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhauSt admini.~xa~ve
remedies; and,
7. The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of the
Circulation Blement of the General Plan and the traffic impacts of the development over the
period of the Developmcnt Agreement will be substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures
and conditions of approval imposed; and,
8. The Development Agreement complies with requirements of the zoning district
in which the applicant proposes to develop in that the Specific Plan zoning of High Density
Residential is consistent with the Medim Density Residential General Plan T~nd Use
Designation; and,
9. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from thi.~
lcgishtion and this Development Agreement are as follows:
a. Generation of municipal revenue;
b. Public infrastructnre facilities;
c. ltnhnnCement Of the qnal!ty of life; including recnm~on facilities for
present and future residents of the City;
d. The oppommity for an adjacent residcntlal-commcfchl project creating
significant job opportunities, sales tax and ad valox~n tax revenues for the City;
e. Payment of Public Facilities Fees (fire and mffic signal mitigation);
f. Pardcipation in special assessment districts to finance regional
infrastructure improvements; and,
g. The creation of recreation dedications and payment of in lieu fees for
public use and the protection of significant natural resources.
Section 3. The Development Agreement imposes upon the subject propeW] the sam
19nd use reg, l~tions imposed by the Westside Specific Plan. Therefree, the Development
Agreement will have the same impact on the envinmment as the Westside Specific Plan. No
further environmenUd ~view beyond that undertaken forthe Westside Specific pi9n is necessary
because none of the cimxmstances described in Section 15162 of Title XVI of the CJ~lifo!rni~
Adminisll'ative Code ("CEQA Guidelines*) al~ found to exist.
Section 4. The Seclllary of the pl~nnlng Commlqion shall cause this Resolution to
be wansmitted to the City Council for further pmceedlngs in accop.~nce with State law.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrEI) this 5th day of June, 1995.
S'r~VEN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HERERY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the pl~nnlng
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 5th day of June,
1995, by the following vow of the Commi,~sion:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PL,ANN~G COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONIdI~:
GARY THORNIra J-
SECRETARY
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
RESPONSE U- I I ER FROM REPRESENTATIVE FOR WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN
~:wr^zr~m,'no'rm,.z,c.~ sn~,~ ~ 45
Stephen G. MeCutehan, AICP
Land Use Planning · Project Hanagement
es
Entitlement Ass smont and Processing
Hay 25, 1995
Members of the Planning Co-..~ssion
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re:
Response by Hancock Development Company, Inc. to the Concerns from the
May 15, 1995 Planning COmmiSSiOn Meeting Regarding the Westside Specific
Plan
Members of the Planning Co-..~ssion:
On behalf of Hancock Development Company, Inc., we want to express our
appreciation for the Planning Con~ssion's review of the Westside specific
Plan at the May 15, 1995 meeting. We know that a tremendous amount of
,ersonal time and effort is dedicated by members of the Planning Commission.
At the request of the City Staff, we have addressed some of the concerns
raised by the Planning Commission that can be best addressed by the
applicant. we hope that these responses.will be informative and address your
concerns.
The responses are in no particular order. Multiple concerns regarding a
single subject have been grouped together to simplify the format of this
response.
Noise Mitigation along East Facing Slope between Planning area A and the
PuJol Street Residences
The Old Town Redevelopment Project EIR does not include definitive
information regarding the height of either ber~s or walls to mitigate the
noise associated with the operation of either the Wild West Arena or the
hotel. The EIR does include specific criteria to locate and design the Wild
west Arena and to lessen its operation noise such as the orientation of the
stage, noise attenuation for speaker systems, the "weight" of the tent
material and the location of seating. Ultimately, sufficient mitigation will
need to be constructed to reduce the a~hient noise levels in the vicinity of
Pujol Street residences to 62 dBA, as required by the EIR.
Page 4-58 of the Draft EIR document includes a statement that after the
completion of the final design for the Wild West Arena, noise modeling be
lone to assess the offset impact of Arena noise. Whether an earthen berm
· nd/or noise attenuation wall is needed can be assessed at this time. We
would reco.wend a condition be added that requires additional noise modeling
785 Spruce Street Riverside, CA 92507 · Phone / Fax (909) 684-0087
· Pager (909) 274-6933
Members of the Planning Commission
May 25, 1995
Page 2
studies be done on the actual design of the Wild West Arena and, '
necessary, requirements regarding height and placement of noise attenuat~
berms and/or walls be developed. The condition should require the
implementation of the findings of the additional noise modeling study prior
to occupancy.
Figure 19A of the Westside Specific Plan (Planning Area A Slope Treatment
Criteria) has been altered to illustrate the approximate location and design
of a noise attenuation berm and/or wall. This design is illustrativeN the
actual design will based upon future noise modeling studies.
2. Feasibility of a Parking Structure to aecPfm^date Additional Parking
The question regarding the feasibility of a parking structure has been
reviewed previouslyby the applicants. Parking structures are very expensive
to construct. As a rule of thumb, parking structures cost approximately
$4,000 per space. In comparison, a parking lot costs approximately $600 per
space. Parking structures are only used where there is no other alternative
due to minimal area requirements. The parking studies done to date on the
project have illustrated that sufficient area exists to provide the parking
needed for the project without constructing a parking structure. Based upon
these factors, we would recommend that the use of parking structures not be
included as part of the Westside Specific Plan.
3. Permitted Uses in Planning Areas A (Special Event Com~ercial)"and B
(Neighborhood Commercial)
The Westside Specific Plan includes Development Standards for each of t
Planning Areas. Included within the Development Standards are "Use
Regulations.' The Use Regulations include uses permitted by right and those
that require Conditional Use Permit approval. The Use Regulations supersede
any similar requirements or lists of uses in the current Zoning Code
(Ordinance 348) or the proposed Development Code.
One of the Planning Comm{esion's questions requested an indication of what
uses would be located in the project, rather than those permitted. It is not
possible to answer this question at this time, because it is not known what
uses are to be located in the planning areas other than the Wild West Arena
and the hotel. Buildings will be constructed to rent or lease space to
commercial retailers and vendors. Any of the permitted uses could be located
in these buildings based upon the Development Standards.
There have been some questions whether the uses allowed by the Westside
Specific Plan will compete with existing uses located in Old Town Temecula.
Great care and concern has been taken in the preparation and evaluation of
the permitted uses to exclude uses that will compete with some of the primary
uses found in Old Town. These uses, such as antique or collectibles stores,
have been excluded from the list of permitted uses in PlanningAreas A and B.
The following is a s~mmary of the parpose of the uses permitted in Planning
Areas A and B.
Planning Area Az Special Event Connnercial
Planning Area A is designated Special Event Commercial. With.
Planning Area A there are two areasz the Tourist Subuse Area and
the Hotel Subuse Area. The Tourist Subuse Area includes the Wild
west Arena and the area ~mmediately surrounding it. Uses proposed
within the Arena, besides a wild west-type show, include animal
Members of the Planning Commission
May 25, 1995
Page 3
auctions, animal shows, a circus, concerts, a farmers market,
product shows and sales, public assemblies, religious meetings and
assAmhlies, rodeos, other special event shows and other Performance
yendes within the Old Town Temecula entertainment concept. There
will also be the boarding of animals kept in association with any
of the special events.
Next to the Wild West Arena is a commercial area. This commercial
area is provided to service the needs of the patrons of the wild
west Arena and the adjacent hotel. As stated previously, the uses
have been l~m~ted to exclude those primary existing uses in Old
Town Temecula. Some of the uses allowed include, but are limited
to, arcades, ATM centers, bicycle rentals, camera and
photofinishing shops, candy and confectionery sales, gift shops,
photographic studios and restaurants.
There are conditionally permitted uses in the Tourist SubuseArea
also. These uses have been included as 'conditionally permitted
uses because their implementation would require site specific
design criteria.
The Hotel Subuse Area is also included in Planning Area A. The
Hotel area includes permitted uses that support the operation of a
hotel. Those uses that would be competitive with the primary
existing uses in Old Town have been excluded. Uses permitted as
ancillary uses to the hotel operation include, but are not l~m~ted
to, apparel and accessory shops, auditori~mA, conference
facilities, convention centers, dinner theaters, exhibition halls,
barber and beauty shops, catering services, drug store/pharmacy,
dry cleaners, gift shops, health and exercise clubs, movie
theaters, nightclubs and dance clubs, restaurants, video arcades,
wine tasting pavilions and wedding chapels.
The conditionally permitted uses in the Hotel Subuse Area include
uses that may be constructed, but are not essential to the
operation of the hotel. These uses may also require site specific
design criteria to be located in Planning Area A.
Planning Area B - Neighborhood Commercial
PlanningArea B proposes the development of a maximum45,000 square
foot neighborhood type commercial center. The uses permitted
within Planning Area B are those typical of neighborhood centers.
Permitted uses include, but are not l~m~ted to, banks and financial
institutions, barber and beauty shops, convenience markets, dry
cleaners, general retail sales and services, liquor sales, offices,
administrative and professional, taverns and bars and restaurants.
Again those uses that were believed to directly compete with the
primary existing Old Town Tnmecula uses were excluded from the
list of permitted uses.
There is an additional consideration in the question of permitted uses
aompeting with Old Town Temecula uses. The Old Town Temecula Entertainment
Project is going to bring many new patrons to Old Town Tomecula and the
Westside Specific Plan area. We believe that, apart from the competitive
uses having been excluded from the Westside Specific Plan, the n-m~er of new
patrons that will come to Old Town Temecula will bring more than enough
Members of the Planning Commission
May 25, 1995
Page 4
commercial business to the existing and new businesses. The change in
n-m~er of patrons is dyD~m~c and will change based upon the success of
new venues proposed by the Entertainment Project.
4. Planning area D
Several issues have been raised regarding Planning area D of the Westside
Specific Plan. PlanningArea D is a High DensityResidential area located in
the southerly portion of the Westside Specific Plan, west of the Western By-
Pass Corridor. The area is a bluff and hillside area.
The Westside Specific Plan proposes Planning Area D as High' Density
Residential for several reasons. The following is a review of those reasons.
a. General Plan Desianation
One of the primary reasons why the Westside Specific Plan designates
Planning Area D as High Density Residential is because the designation
is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan. Exhibit A
attached, is a depiction of the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use
Plan with the boundaries of the Westside Specific Plan and the
approximate area of Planning Area D noted.
In our opinion, the City has an obligation to follow the designation its
General Plan in determining the land use for Planning Area D. We
believe that it is the City's obligation because a General Plan serves
as a contract between the City and property owners within the City. "
one hand, the City has the right to regulate land use in the b,
interest of the community. For this reason, the State requires that txa~
City adopt a comprehensive General Plan, or a General Plan that
thoroughly address issues regarding development and its effect on the
community. However, once the General Plan is adopted, the property
owner has certain rights and expectations based upon the General Plan to
develop consistent with the General Plan. The City can make
deterntinations regarding the appropriateness of the t~m~ng of
development based upon factors such as the availability of services,
however, to decide that the City no longer believes a General Plan land
use is appropriate deprives the property owner of the rights and
expectations that the General Plan is intended to give.
The applicant is not applying at this time to develop the site as High
Density Residential, only further designate the site as High Density
Residential in the Specific Plan and adopted appropriate Development
Standards and Design Criteria to guide future project and site specific
design. We believe it is appropriate to allow this to occur because it
follows the General Plan.
b. Bioloaical Considerations
Concern has been expressed regarding the impact of the future
development of Planning Area D on biological resources. The EIR
contains a thorough review of the biological considerations. The on!Y
adverse impact addressedby the EIR pertaining to PlanningArea D was
regard to the habitat of the California Gnatcatcher. To s-mm~rize ~
findings of the EIR, there will be a loss of Gnatcatcher habitat through
the development of Planning Area D. However, the EIR recommends the
impact be m~tigated by the acquisition of 97 acres of Gnatcatcher
habitat offsite as a mitigation offset.
Members of the Planning Co.w~ssion
May 25, 1995
Page 5
The acreages and assumptions used in the EIR are gross estimates based
upon assumptions of future development in place at the time of its
preparation. Future development of Planning Area D can be conditioned
to place the protection of the natural environment as a high priority.
This condition will require future project designers to emphasize
environmental measures in grading and site design.
c. Gradina
Planning Area D is a hillside area, but not as steep as hillside area
included within Planning Area F. Planning Area D includes developable
portions. The City of Temecula General Plan recognized the developable
portions when the area was designated as Medium and High Density
Residential. Exhibit B attached, depicts the various zones of
topography within the Westside Specific Plan. The exhibit illustrates
much of Planning Area D within a Moderate Slope and Bluff area. It is
estimated that slopes within these areas range~frum 5% to 25%.
The Specific Plan includes design criteria to l~m~t the grading of
Planning Area D. The following criteria are found on page 78 of the
Draft Westside Specific Plans
PlanningArea D is characterized as a low foothill bluff
area. The topography of the site is well suited for a
multiple family residential project where individual
buildings are placed on different pads and at different
elevations. The grading design for Planning Area D
should use contour grading and multiple foundations to
follow the natural contour of the site and minimize
grading. The use of retaining walls should be l~m~ted
using clustering of units divided by landscaped slopes.
The size of individual parking areas should also be
limited by the natural contour of the slope.
The applicant is in the process at this time of preparing conceptual
plans for the site that will illustrate prel{m{nary grading for the site
and building placement. We .believe that the application of the grading
criteria established in the Specific Plan (as stated in the above), will
require grading that is sensitive to the site topography.
d. Fire Protection and Fuel Modification
The Westside Specific Plan includes requirements to protect future
development of Planning Area D from wildland fire. Page 79 of the
Specific Plan includes standards for fuel modification that are
consistent with the standards of the City Fire Department.
Fuel modification landscaping, a minimum of 100 feet in
width, shall be installed between the developed portions
of Planning Area D and adjacent open space areas. Fuel
modification areas shall be accessible by fire
suppression vehicles. All buildings within PlanningArea
D shall be constructed to be fire resistive. Design and
installation of fuel modification landscaping and the
fire resistire characteristics of the buildings shall be
approved by the Fire Marshall.
Members of the Planning Co-~{ssion
May 25, 1995
Page 6
Besides fuel modification of the surrounding landscaping, the Specif
Plan requirements emphasize the need for building construction that:
fire resistant. Features that would be required would include Class
roofs, enclosed eaves, no wood structures such as patio covers and the
location of fire hydrants and other suppression on-site in proximity to
the open space area.
e. Visual Impacts
Concern has been expressed regarding the visual impacts of PlanningArea
D because of development of a hillside area next to the western hills
that border the valley. The above section regarding grading illustrates
the grading criteria that have been included to reduce and mitigate the
impacts of grading. we recommend that the Planning Commission consider
conditions of approval that requires faster revegation of the graded
areas of PlanningArea D and more intensive landscaped requirements that
would provide faster growth of on-site vegetation.
f. Assessment District Financina Considerations
While not a direct consideration of the Westside Specific Plan, a very
significant related consideration is that of the fiscal implications
associated with the financing of the western By-Pass Corridor and other
public improvements. The amount, type and intensity of development the
City ultimately allows in the Westside Specific Plan will have animpact
on the ability the City to fund the Western By-Pass Corridor.
The following factors are important in the consideration of t
financingz
Financing of public improvements through an assessment
district is based upon the value of the land and, more
importantly the improvements, which are being established as
security for the public finance bonds to be sold.
The value of the land and improvements and their ability to
generate tax revenue is the security for the bonds.
If the value is lessened significantly by not allowing the
land uses contemplated by the General Plan, such as Planning
Area D, there may not be sufficient security to sell the
bonds.
Therefore, without Planning Area D, the chance increases
significantly that there will not be adequate land and
improvements to bond for the construction of the western By-
Pass Corridor.
5. ~eneral Plan Consistency
Questions were raised at the Planning Comm{ssion meeting regarding the
General Plan consistency of the Westside Specific Plan. We agree that there
may some confusion regarding General Plan consistency because the
designations used in the Westside Specific Plan are, sometimes, different
from the General Plan designations. However, we believe that it is
intent of the Westside Specific Plan to propose uses and equivalent are
that are in keeping with the intent of the General Plan and its policies
this area.
l~embers of the Planning Co-w{ssion
May 25, 1995
Page 7
-~"he following table compares the designations in the General Plan with the
~rresponding Westside Specific Plan designations. We believe it illustrates
,how the two are consistent.
CURRENT GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS
WESTSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNAIIONS
BUSINESS PARK (BP)
50 ACRES
SPECIAL E"v%q~T COMM (SEC)
MIXED USE (MU)
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (NC)
47.7 ACRES
2.8 ACRES
5.4 ACNES
MEDIUM DENSITY NESIDENTIAL (M) 5 ACRES
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (H) 20 ACRaS
HIGH DENSITY RHSIDENTIAL (HDR~0.8 ACRES
TARGET NO. OF UNITS 460
TARGET NO. OF UNITSt 429
RHSIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (RH)
OPEN SPACE (OS)
70 ACRES
5 ACRES
OPEN SPACE (OS)
67 · 4 ACRES
6. gntz7 Monumen~ation
The Westside Specific Plan includes provisions to establish entry monuments
at key locations in the planning area. Concern was expressed whether the
Major Entry Monument proposed within PlanningArea D should be moved easterly
along the Western By-Pass Corridor to the intersection with Front Street. In
this location, it could serve as a City entry statement and a project entry
statement.
-he primary purpose for leaving the Major Entry Monument on Planning Area D
s that it can be easily incorporated into the project design and
Uevelopment. No property rights would need to be acquired to locate and
construct the sign. If the sign is moved to the Western By-Pass Corridor and
Front Street, property rights, either in fee or an easement, will need to be
acquired. The Planning Commission may want to consider a condition of
approval that would state that if property rights can be readily acquired,
the Major Entry Monument shown in Planning Area D should be moved to the
Western By-Pass Corridor and Front Street. If the rights cannot be readily
obtained, the entry monument may be constructed on-site in Planning Area D.
7. 3 Year Versus 5 Year Plant Maturity
The Planning Conunission has expressed the desire to initiate a program under
which landscaping on the project would be designed to mature in three years
rather than the standard five years. we believe that there are particular
areas of the Westside Specific Plan that would benefit from increasing the
growth maturity rate from five to three years. This would include the slope
area and buffer between the Pujol Street residences and Planning Area A and
Planning Area D. However, other areas would work as well using a five year
maturity plan. We recommend that a condition of approval be added that
requires that, as part of site specific design, a landscape architect
evaluate the merits of three versus five year maturity growth rate and
present the findings to the Planning Commission.
8. ParklandMitigation
estside Specific Plan Condition of Approval N-mhers 80 - 82 address Qulmhy
Act parkland dedication requirements. The conditions require that the
parkland dedication requirements be figured out for Planning Areas C and D
(Condition No. 80), that private recreational lands may receive a 50% credit
toward the Qulm~y ACt standards and that the remaining Qulmhy Act requirement
Members of the Planning Commission
May 25, 1995
Page 8
be satisfied by payment of in-lieu fees (Condition No. 81) and that t~
Qu~mhy Act requirements be satisfied before the finaling of record m~
(Condition No. 82).
The Westside Specific Plan does not propose a public park as part of the
project. Requirements for both private and common open space, 150 square
feet each, are included in the Development Standards for PlanningAreas C and
D. The common area requirements for Planning Areas C and D will provide
adequate "park' area for the residents.
We appreciate the Planning Comm~ssion's consideration of these items. We
also want to express our appreciation for the sacrifice made by the members
of Planning Commission to serve the City in the manner you do.
Very truly yours,
Stephen G. McCutchan, AICP
cc: Eugene S. Hancock