Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout050696 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLAN'N~G COMMItION May ~, 1996, 6.'00 PM Ranelm California Water Dtstriet's Board Room 42135 Winehefar Road Ten~eala, CA 92390 CAt, L TO ORDER: Cha manFah y ROLL CALL: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysisk and Webs2r PUBLIC COMMENTS A ~ of 15 minutu is provided so members of lh~ public tan address the commi~ionexs on items that are DOt listed ou lhe Ag~nda. SpeAk~r$ at~ liralined to three (3) mlntlte$ eadL ff you desire to speak to COrnmis~ abGut au ~k~m riot listed on the AgeBda, a pink eRequest and filed with the Commi&sion Secretan.,. |'o~ all other to Speak" fbrm Planning .~?crt;tary Commi.~ion gem Io ~hat item. There ks t d:n~? (~) speakers I. A 3. .menl I'lan) Em Planoct: Recomnaendatiou: Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: iolers~tioo of Rio Appro~ a 17,91)(I :ility ion ~Planner .square fool Planning Application No. PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit - Kid's World) John and Christine McCusker South side of Santiago Road, immediately south of the intersection of Santiago Road and Quiet Meadow Road Design and construct a pre-school and dementary school on 3.~ acres Mitigated Negative Declaration Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner Approval R:\W1MBBRVOXPLANCOMMXAOEIqDA~-6-96 S11/96 vlw I PLANNING DII~ECTOR~S ~EPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS Next meeting: May 20, 1996 - Regular Planning Commission ADJOURNMENT ITEM #2 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager May 6, 1996 Director' s Hearing Case Update The following cases were heard at Planning Director's Hearings in April, 1996: Date Case No. Proposal Applicam Action February 29 PA96-0001 Minor Conditional Use Ladel Penfold Approved Permit to convert an ex~fin~ vacant budding in a commercial oentor to a Night Club with alcohol March 28 PA96-0013 Development Plan for a Joe Aleore Approved 4,000 square foot veterinarian clinic April 11 PA95-0135 Plot Plan for medical Temecula Medical Approved PA96-0004 office Park Development Tentative PM 28317 Phase H April 18 PA96-0018 1,400 sq. ft. office California Companies Continued to building April 25 and 1,680 sq. ft. m~i~mne.~ facility April 25 PA96-0018 A 1,400 sq. ft. office California Companies Continued to building May 9 anda 1,680sq. ft. maintenanoe facility PA964X}08 Development Plan for a Hydroscape Products, 9,994 sq. ft. warehouse Inc. and office facility Direction to place on PC agenda, dam to be determined Cas~ PA96-0038 PA96-0028 Grn~ng and erosion control plan Minor CUP, ~,000 sq. church John Maxwell Haulson Tem~ula Valley Community Church Attachments: 1. Action Agendas - Blu~ Page 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S F1Y~ARING REGULAR M3EETING FEBRUARY 29, 1996 1:30 PM TE1VIZCULA CITY EL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: John Meyer, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to spa to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" .form should be fried out and fried with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fried with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC FFRARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA96-0001 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Ladd Perffold 27537 Jefferson Avenue Convert an existing vacant building in a commercial center to a Night Club with alcohol sales Exempt Craig Ruiz Approve APPROVED ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR 1VI~ETING MARCH 28, 1996 1:30 PM TEMIi;CULA CITY HAiL MAIN CON'FF/tF~CE ROOM 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: John Meyer, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMM~,NTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that axe not listed on the Agenda. Speakers axe limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desixe to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be fried out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forwazd and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fled with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA96-0013 (Development Plan) Joe Aleore West of the intersection of Rancho California Road a~d Lyndie Lane A 4,000 square foot veterinarian clinic None CPreviously adopted Master Mitigated Negative Declaration for PA95-0053 applies to this project) Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner Approval AlPROVED WITIt CHANGES: DELETE COA 39, 49"A", AND 56° ADJO~ ACTION AGENDA TE1VIECULA DIRECTOR'S Itl~ARING REGULAR MEETING APRIL 11, 1996 1:30 PM TE1VIECULA CITY H.AIoL MAIN CONF'ERENCE ROOM 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: John Meyer, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. ff you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be fffied out and ~ed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to spa, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fried with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: PA95-0135, Plot Phn and PA96-41004, Tentative Parcel Map No. 28317 Temecula Medical Park Development Phase H Winchester Road, east of Ynez Road Plot Plan for a three mite medical office and Parcel Map to create three office commercial condominium Negative Declaration Steve Brown Annie Bostre-Le Approval APPROVED R:\DIRH~ARXAG]~rDA~t-ll-96.A13N 4f25/~ klb ACTION AGENDA TEMECUIA DIRECTOR'S tIF~ARING REGULAR M~,~TING Alan, 18, 1996 1:30 PM CITY ItALL MAIN CON~'x~F_~ICE ROOM 43174 Business Park Drive Temeeula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: lohn Meyer, Senior Planner PUBLIC COlVIMF-NTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address W the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. ff you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and fried with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenaa items a "Requfft to Speak" form must be fried with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. Them is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA96-0018 California Companies South side of Winchester Road, approximately 1,400 feet west of Diaz Road Construction of a 1,400 square foot office building and a 1,680 squaxe foot maintenance facility with associated storage of outdoor equipment for a landscaping business. Proposed Negative Declaration Craig Ruiz Annie Bostre-Le Approve CONTINUED TO APRIL 25, 1996 DIRECTOR'S HI*-ARING ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S FrEARING REGULAR MEETING APRIL 2~, 1996 1:30 PM TEMECULA tel"/HALl. MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a p'mk "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute lime limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA96-0018 California Companies South side of Winchester Road, approximately 1,400 feet west of Diaz Road Construction of a 1,400 square foot office building and a 1,680 square foot maintenance facility with associated storage of outdoor equipment for a landscaping business. Proposed Negative Declaration Craig Rniz Annie Bostre-Le Approval CONTINUED TO 'tHE MAY 9, 1996 DIRECTOR'S HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: ACTION: PA96-0008 (Devdopment Plan) Hydroscape Products, inc. 41581 Enterprise Circle North Develop warehouse and office facility of approximately 9,994 square feet Negative Declaration Stephen Brown Mike Boone Approval DIRECTION TO PLACE ON PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA, DATE TO BE DETER.MINED R:\DI~JdP_ARXAGENDAx~-25-96.AON 4/26196 cdr Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmemal Action: Cas~ Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: PA96-0038 (Grading Permit) John Maxwell Harrison JeXk~dinh Smith Road, North of SR 79 South Grading and erosion con~ol plan for lots 19, 20 and 21 of Tract 9833-3 Negative Declaration Steve Brown Approval APPROVED Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: PA96.00/8 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Tcmecula Valley Community Church 27496 Commerce Center Drive Locate a 4,000 square foot church in an existing commercial center Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 Steve Brown Approval APPROVED ITEM #3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 6, 1996 Planning Application No. PA96-0041 (Development Plan, Fast Track) Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA96-0041; 2. ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA96-0041; 3. ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of PA96-0041 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and 4. APPROVE Planning Application No. PA96-0041 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Michael Reeves, Sorrento Development Tim Bunch, New Venture Design, Inc. Design and construction of a 17,910 square foot industrial/office/warehouse building South side of Rio Nedo, west of the intersection of Rio Nedo and Calle Empleado Light Industrial (LI) North: Light Industrial (LI) South: Light Industrial (LI) East: Light Industrial (LI) West: Light Industrial (LI) Not requested Business Park (BP) Vacant R:\STAFFRFi~41PA96.PC 4/30/96 mf SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: 55,404 square feet Total Site Area: Building Area: 17,910 square feet Landscape Area: 15,352 square feet Paved Area: 20,729 square feet Other hardscaped areas: 1,413 square feet Parking Required: 45 spaces Parking Provided: 45 spaces Building Height: Twenty-nine feet six inches (29'6") BACKGROUND This project was authorized as a Fast Track project on March 4, 1996. A preliminary meeting was held on March 12, 1996. The application was formally submitted to the Planning Department on March 19, 1996. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on March 28, 1996. Ranning Application No. PA96-0041 was deemed complete on April 10, 1996. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a proposal to design and construct a 17,910 square foot manufacturing/office/warehouse facility. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of the project site will be landscaped. Parking will be on the side and rear portions of the site. The project site has been previously graded. Rio Nedo has been improved to its ultimate right-of-way and all utilities are within vicinity to the project site. ANALYSIS Site Plan Parking for the project will be on the eastern and southern portion of the site. An employee lunch area has been provided at the southeastern portion of the site. Loading will be at the rear of the site. The applicant has done a good job addressing all of Staff concerns and meeting the performance standards outlined in the Development Code (i.e, circulation, architectural design, site planning and design and compatibility). R:\STAFFRP~41PA96.PC 4/30/96 m~ 2 Elevations The architecture is consistent with other buildings in the area. The building will be tilt-up concrete, with reveals to break up the messing. The office portion of the building will be glass, and the warehouse/manufacturing portion will be concrete. The entrance to the building has been well defined. The applicant has done a good job articulating all facades of the building. The rear portion of the building has been articulated at the top of the building. Staff feels that this is adequate because the bottom portion will be obscured by a slope and landscaping. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Existing zoning for the site is LI (light Industrial), Manufacturing/office/warehouse uses are permitted with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code. The applicant has done a good job in terms of design of the project and has been responsive to issues and concerns raised by Staff, FINDINGS The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Landscaping). The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. R:\STAFFP,~I~41PA96,PC 4/30/96 rot' 3 Attachments: 2. 3, 4. PC Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 5 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Initial Study - Blue Page 17 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 36 Exhibits - Blue Page 42 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Elevations F. Landscape Plan ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- R:\STAFFRPT~41PA96.PC 4130196mf 5 ATtACHMeNT NO. I PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMt~SION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0041 (DEVELOPlV~.NT PLAN) TO CONSTRUCT A 17,910 SQUARE FOOT MANUFACTURING, OFFICE, AND WAR~J:IOUSE FACILITY ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.2 ACRES LOCATED AT 4:2685 RIO NED0 AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-290-047 WltEREAS, Michel C. Reeves filed Planning Application No. PA96-0041 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0041 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHERFAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0041 on May 6, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an oppormhity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public heating, upon heating and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0041; NOW, TFrF. REFORE, TltF. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA96-0041 makes the foliowing findings, to wit: 1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecuh and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances to include: the City' s Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Landscaping). 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and R:\STAFF~41PA96.FC 4130/96 meets the standaxds adopte~l by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and weftam. 3. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements axe not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife oftheir habitat. An Initial Study was px~q3ared for the project and it has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. 4. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA96-0041 (Development Plan) as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. Section 3. l~vironmental Compliance. An Di~al Study prepanxt for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case beca-se the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA96-0041 to construct a 17,910 manufacturing, office, and warehouse facility located at 42685 Rio Nedo and known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 909-290-047 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, AlPROVED AND ADOPTRr} this 6th day of May, 1996. LINDA FAHEY CHAIRMAN I ltRREBY CERTIYY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereef, held on the 6th day of May, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: DEBBIE UBNOSKE SECRETLY R:~STAFF~IPA~6.PC 4130196 mf 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPTX41PA96.PC 4/30/96 mf 9 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA96-0041 (Development Plan, Fast Track) Project Description: A 17,910 manufacturing, office, and warehouse facility Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-290-047 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made 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 with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). 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 Planning Application No. PA96-0041 (Development Plan) which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., 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. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. R:~STAFFRPT~IPA96.1~C 4/30/96 mf 10 4. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, and approved with Ranning Application No. PA96-0041, or as amended by these conditions. A. A minimum of forty-five (45) parking spaces shall be provided. B. A minimum of two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. C. Two (2) Class I lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit F, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Landscape plans shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, or as amended by these conditions. The applicant shall preserve the existing street trees as feasible. If trees need to be removed, then they shall be relocated to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. 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 Ran 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 10. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid upon submittal of building plans for plan check. 11. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Ranning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 12. 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 be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site, 13. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 14. An application for signage with the appropriate filing fee shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. 15. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 16. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning. 20. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 21. 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 R:~STAFFRPT~lPA96.PC 4/30/96 mf 12 22. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Ur~iform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled access regulations end the Temecula Municipal Code {1994 editions due for adoption by December 1995|. 23. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 24. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 25. All buildings and facilities must compi~ with applicable disabled access regulations (Califomia Disable Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). 26. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems. 27. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 28. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 29. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 30. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. 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 will subject the project to further review and may require revision. General Requirements 31. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements, shall be obtainec~ from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 32. 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. 33. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjoining projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. R:\STAI~RPT~41PA96.PC 4/30/96 m/ 13 Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit 34. A Precise Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 35. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works 36. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and 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. 37. Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 38. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing that the grading and erosion control improvements are in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 39. 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. 40. An Area Drainage Ran fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, or verification that such a fee has been previous paid for this lot, prior to issuance of any permit. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 41. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works, An Encroachment Permit will be required for any work performed within the City right-of-way. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveway shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. Ce Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. R:\STAFFRPT~,IPA96.PC 4130196 n~ 14 d. Street outlet for onsite drainage shall be constructed per City of Temecula Standard No. 301. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 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. The Developer shall construct or post security and execute an agreement guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. Sidewalk along entire property frontage of Rio Nedo and related improvements including relocation of street trees and utilities. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. The Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be 92.00 per square foot, not to exceed 910,000. The Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving his/her right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. 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 Western Bypass 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. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 47. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 48. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, 49. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. OTHER AGENCIES 50. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Fire Department's transmittal dated March 26, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 51. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated April 18, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 52. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated March 25, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 53. The applicant shall comply with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated April 22, 1996, a copy of which is attached. I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval. Applicant Name ]~:\STAFFRY1~41PA96.~C 511196 mf 16 ss r 90 (909) 694-6444 · Fax 1909) 694ol '~-/9 March 26, 1996 TO: AI'IN: RE: PLANNING DEPART!~]~NT MATi~IEW FAGAN PA96-0041 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fn'e protection standards: The fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. Aftre flow of 4000 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operafrog pressure must be available before any combustible material is phced on the job site. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants (6"x4"x2-2 1/1"), will be located no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required rue flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrare(s) in the system. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fnre hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible buliding materials being placed on the job site. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building plans. Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites axe protected by a fire or burglax alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. 10. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort. 11. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement. 12. It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code. 13. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire hydrant. 14. Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the street side of the building with a contrasting background. 15. All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing materials as described in The Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall be a Class "B" rating and shall be approved by the f~re department prior to installation. 16. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans axe reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. Please contact the Fir~ D~anment for a final inspe~on prior to occupancy. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department planning and engineering section (909)694-6439. RAYMOND H. REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner Laura Cabral Fire Safety Specialist ucho April 18, 1996 Mr. Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT: Water Availability APN 909-290-047 Case No. PA96-0041 To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of fmanciai arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager wp96\SB:mc015/F012/FEF cc: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Manager TO: FROM: RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH By ....... DATE: March 25, 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner PLOT PLAN NO. PA96-0041 DIST/ ED The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA96-0041 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, for health clearance, the following items are required: 1. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. 2. Three complete sets of plans for each food establishmere will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022. · If vending machines are installed in the employee lunch area permits from our Food Facility Plan Checker will be required. Contact Becky Johnson at (909) 694-5022. 3. A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358- 5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: a) Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.3. b) Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.2. c) Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.1). d) Waste reduction management. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA). GD:dr (909) 275-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Depaxtment of Environmental Health clearance. DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer City of Temecula Plannin Department 43174 ~usiness Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 Attention: h~ ~ Tbl E VJ Ladies and Gentlemen: RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT FIq6AN CUP 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/275 - 1200 909/788-9965 FAX 7829.1 V?3 AP,,,'?, 2 S The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the Distdct including Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and draina e facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area ~;ainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any wa constitute or imply Distdct approval or endorsement of the proposed project w~th respect to flood hazard, public healt~ and safety or any other such issue: ~-/ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards and Distdct plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and admin strative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be conszdered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider acceptin ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Disthct standa~igs, and Disthct plan check and inspection wfil be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. b/ This project is located within the limits of the Disthct's ~C~,~iE''~, C,q',~'''LEE---, Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; a phcable fees should be pasd to the Flood Control District or Ci rior to final ap royal of the pro'ect, or in tge case of a arcel map or subdivision prior to recordation 'o /tge fl.a, map. to be paid J;ou,d be at the rate in e&t at the time of recordetion. or if deferred, at the time of issuance of the actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other ~gal approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergeng. y Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require ~J~e applicant to rovide all studies, calculations, plans and other information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should lPt. Jrther require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) pdor to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~;ter Act Section 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of En ineers. or wdtten correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. C: STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: 4"?~-- ATTACHMENT N0.2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\STAFFRFI~41PA96.PC 4/30/96 m~ 17 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 10. Project Title: Planning Application No. PA96-0041 (Development Plan) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Person and Phone Number: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location: South side of Rio Nedo, west of the intersection of Rio Nedo and Calle Empleado Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Michael C. Reeves, Sorrento Development, 674 Via De La Valle, Solana Beach, CA 92075 General Plan Designation: Business Park (BP) Zoning: Light Industrial (LI) Description of Project: Design and construction of a 17,900 square foot industrial/office/warehouse building Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is located in a area that has been previously graded, street improvements have been made and water and sewer have are within vicinity of the project. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency. R:\STAFFRPT~41PA96.PC 4/30/96 mf 1 ~B ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ] ] X] X] ] ] ] ] Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geologic Problems Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources ] Hazards , ] Noise ] Public Services ] Utilities and Service Systems X ] Aesthetics ] Cultural Resources ] Recreation ] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: [] IX] 11 [1 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant 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 an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. R:\STAFFP,,~T~IPA~6.PC 4/30/96 mf 19 [] 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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in a earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Date Printed Name For R:\STAFFRP'IMlpA96.PC 4130196 m~' 20 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Issues and Supporting Information Sources 1, LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5- 4, Page 5-17) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low- income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7- 6) b. Seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e. Landslides or mudflows? f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? Impact Potentially ignlf~ent Unlemmm Incorporated X X X No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X R:%STAFFP, Fr~IPA96.1}C 4/30/96 mf 2 1 Issues and Supporting Information Sources· · ."' Pdtentia~ly. Ur~ieee · Lees Theft ' : .... Significant Mitigation .Significant. g. Subsidence of the land? h. Expansive soils? I. Unique geologic or physical features? 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source 2, Figure 13, Page 95 and Source 2, Figure 30, Page 190} Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? X X X X X X X X X "No X X X X b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants7 c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate7 X X R:\STAFFRFr%41PA96.]PC 4/30/96 mf 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources d. Create objectionable odors? 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X X X X Impact X X X X X X X X X X X R:\STAFFRPT~lpA96.PC 4/30/96 mf 23 Issues.and SuppOrting' Information Sources c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State7 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a, A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles, chemical or radiation)7 b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan7 c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard7 d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards7 e. Increase fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection7 c. Schools? d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e. Other governmental services? Potentlall;/· · t]nl~ss Impact Inoorporated Significant . Impact X X X X X X No X X X X X X X R:~STAFFILuT\41PA96.PC 4/30/96 mf 24 Issues end Supporting Information Sources 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new system or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c. Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 2, Figure 56, Page 283) c. Affect historical resources? d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? Sig~Jflcant P~tentilHy Significant Inco-porated X Lees Than Signfficant X X No X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially : 'Significant · ' Impect 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Does the pro)ect have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None. · Potentjelly Sig~ficant · UOlele · Less Titan Mitigation · Significant No Incorporated Impact ' 'Impact X X X X R:\STAFFRFIM1PA~d. PC 4/30/~snf 26 SOURCE LIST I - City of Temecula General Plan 2 - City of Temecula General Ran Final Environmental Impact Report R:XSTAFFRPT~IPA96.PC 4/30/96 ml' 27 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use and Planning 1.b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The project site has been previously graded and services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project, No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community {including low-income or minority community). The project is an industrial/office/warehouse use in an area surrounded by land that is currently planned to be developed with similar uses. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Population and Housing 2.a. The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is an industrial/office/warehouse use which is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does not exceed the floor area ratio for Business Park, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. The project will cause people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.c. The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant; therefore no housing will be displaced, No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Geologic Problems 3.b, c,g,h. The project will have a less than significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking; however, there may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated R:\STAFFRIr~41PA96.FC 4/30/96 mf 2~ 3.d. 3.8. 3.f. 3.1. Water 4.a. 4.c. through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography, grading or fill. The site has been previously graded and the project does not propose significant grading beyond that which has already occurred. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Since the amount of grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project, modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No l~:\STAF~1PA96.1~C 4/30/96 mf 29 grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.d,e. The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. Surface drainage will be channeled to Rio Nedo. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage into the Murrieta Creek will not considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.f-h. The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters; however, due. to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.i. The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project 19,000 square feet of industrial/office/warehouse is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact (276,000 square feet) established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Page 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.b. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.d. The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. R:\STAFFRPT~41PA96.PC 4/30/96 mf 30 TransDortation/Circulation 6.a. 6.b. The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic congestion. The Focused Traffic Analysis prepared for the project (dated March 18, 1996 by Robert KahneJohn Kain & Associates, Inc.) states: "the proiect will contribute less than a five percent ~5%) increase in existing volumes during the AM 9eak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersection of Diaz Road and Rio Nedo." The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.c. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse use in an area with existing and planned similar uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not provide direct access to nearby uses; therefore, it will not impact access to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d. The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The applicant has completed a parking needs analysis based upon the uses .~:oposed by this pro,oct. Based upon this analysis, there will be sufficient on-site parking spaces provided. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.e. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f. The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The project was transmitted to the Riverside Transit Agency {RTA} and their response states: "The proposed project does not impact RTA facilities or services." No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.g. The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Biological Resources 7.a. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT~41PA96.PC 4/30/96 mf 3 1 7.b. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.c. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.d. The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site or within proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.8. The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Energy and Mineral Resources The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non- renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Hazards 9.a. The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. Large quantities of these types of substances will not be associated with this use. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and the applicant must receive their clearance prior to any plan check submittal. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any R:\STAi~RP'B41PA96,PC 4/30/96 mf ~_ emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. g.c. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse development in an area of existing and future similar uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Noise 10.a. The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long- term noise generated by this project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term. lO.b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 1 O0 + DBA at 1 O0 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Public Services 11 .a,b. The proiect will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.c. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.d. The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 11.e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Utilities and Service Systems 12.a. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.b. The project will not result in a need for communication systems (reference anticipated as a result of this project. new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to response No. 12.a.}. No significant impacts are 12.c. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.d. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)? Since the project is consistent with the City's General Ran, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.e. The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.f. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.g. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Aesthetics 13.a. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRi>T~41PA~.iu~ 4/30/9~ m~ 34 13.b. The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse use in an area of existing and proposed similar uses. The building is consistent with other high quality design in the area and proposed landscaping will provide additional aesthetic enhancement. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 14.a,c, The project will not have an impact on paleontological and historical resources. The site has been disturbed from prior grading activity. Because of the previous grading activity on the site and the limited scale of the project, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.d. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.a,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e. The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Recreation 15.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STAFFRIrI",JlPA96.1~C 4/30/96 mf 36 .j ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS CITY OF TEMECULA ~81TE CASE NO. - PA96-0041 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- A '.ANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 VICINITY MAP CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) BP EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK) CC CASE NO. - PA96-0041 (Development Ran) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA96-0041 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- D '~ ' ANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 SITE PLAN R:\STAFFRPT~41PA96.PC 4125196 lift CITY OF TEMECULA FRONT ELEVATION LEFT 51DE ELEVATION EXTERIOR FINISN I COLOR 5CHEDULF ............... ,-~,_,,~.,-.,, ~,~,:,::~ ® CASE NO. - PA96-0041 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 ELEVATIONS CITY OF TEMECULA RIGNT 51DE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION ~:,,.,,,-,,~- ~ EXIERIOR FINISH I COLOR SCREDULE ............... ~::..=-.:, - N©TE5 CASE NO. - PA96-0041 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - E f-'~LANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 ELEVATIONS CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA96-0041 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 LANDSCAPE PLANS R:',STAFFRFI~41PA96.PC 4/25/96 mf ITEM #4 RECOMMENDATION: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION May 6, 1996 Planning Application No. PA9(~0035 (Conditional Use Permit) Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner The Planning Deparunent Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Platruing Application No. PA96-0035; 2. ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA96-0035; 3. ADO~ Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of planning Application No. PA96-0035 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and 4. ~PROVE Planning Application No. PA96-0035 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: John and Ch~stine McCusker Engineering Ventures Construct and operate a pre-school and elementary school on 3.3 acres. Proposal includes a 1,500 square foot office, a 5,525 square foot multi-purpose room, 16,700 square feet of classroom area, playground area, a non-lighted recreational area and activity areas. South side of Santiago Road, 500 feet west of the intersection of Ynez and Santiago Roads SP (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan) North: South: East: West: SP (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan) SP (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan) SP (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan) SP CRancho Highlands Specific Plan) Not requested VL (Ver~ Low Density Residential - .2-.4 dwelling units per acre) R:\STAFFRPTX3$PA96.PC 511196 mf EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Single-family residences Single-family residences Pre-school Pre-school PROJECT STAT!~TICS Total Area: 3.3 acres Total Site Area: 145,055 square feet Building Area: 23,729 square feet Landscape Area: 34,681 square feet Paved Area: 45,750 square feet Outdour Activity Ares: 40,895 square feet Parking Required: Eighty-four (84) Parking Provided: Eighty-four (84) BACKGROUND The apphcation was formally submitted to the Planning Department on March 11, 1996. A Development Review Committee (I)RC) meeting was held on March 28, 1996. Planning Application No. PA96-0035 was deemed complete on April 10, 1996. PROJECT DESCRH'TION The project is a proposal to construct and operate a pre-school and elementary school. There will be twenty (20) classroom totaling 13,824 square feet, a 1,440 square foot library, a 720 square foot computer room, a 5,525 square foot multi-purpose baildinE and a 1,500 square foot office. Total site area is 3.3 acres. Hours of operation for the pre-school are 6:30 am to 6:00 pm (Monday though Friday) and hours of operation for the elementmy school are 8:30 am to 3:30pro (Monday through Friday). The maximum enrollment proposed is 250 students. There will he limited "special events" throughout the year which would require hours of operation beyond the standard school hours. There will be no school bells used at the site. Drop-off zones for students will be on the east and west sides of the project and vehicular traffic will be direc~l by a coordinator during morning and afiemoun peak hours. The project will be located in a "corridor" of similar educational uses and will be compatible with those uses. ANALYSIS Site Plan The site plan has been designed with the drive lane and parking areas around the school. Staff originally directed the applicant to contact the adjacent property owners (to the east and west) to have joint use driveways at the existing locations. The applicant was unable to LZain permission from the adjacem property owners. The entry to the site has been phced at the mid-point of the property frontage, and aligns with Quiet Meadow Road to the north. Staff supports this location. The office will he at the from of the site, flanked by two classrooms. The drop-off locations for the pre-school and the elementary school have been separated on either side if the project. There is another classroom bullcling and a multi-purpose building on the site. These have been located behind the proposed office and classrooms. Activity areas are located throughout the project, with a non-lighted field at the rear portion of the site. The plan has been well designed for optimal vehicular R:\STAFI~,FT~SPA96.PC 5/1/96mf 2 circulation and adequate buffers have been provided to mitigate any potential noise impacts. A~c~imcmre All structures at the school are primarily one-story (with the exception of the multi-purpose building) and have been designed with some residential characteristics. All of the buildings are permanent structures. The office and the two classrooms adjacent to Santiago Road have been e~hanced and include the use of river rock, wood siding, and windows (with shutters). The colors and materiMs resemble those uses across the street in the Summit development. Another structure on-site (the library/computer/classroom building) has similar materials; however, it is not as articulated as the buildings adjacent to Santiago Road because it is not as visible. Staff has concerns regarding the twenty-six foot high multi-purpose building (reference Attachment No. 4, Exhibit E). The scale and massing of the building are not consistent with residential development in the area. The applicant has attempted to provide articulation of the building; however, it is still not compatible with the surrounding area. The specific choice and use of materials provides limited opportunities for compatibility with the surrounding area. While the applicant has been open to Staffs recommendations to articulate the faced of the multi-purpose room, Staffis not cornfortable with the multi-purposebuildingaspropesed. Staff is requesting the Planning Commission provide direction on this mauer. Traffic The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Study for the project. The applicant informed Staff that traffic counts were taken during a period when public schools and the privato schools in the area were not in session. Staff directed the applicant to conduct the traffic counts again, when school was in session. These counts were performed on April 30, 1996. Based upon the analysis, the intersection of Santiago Road and Quiet Meadow will continue to operate at a Level of Service "A" during am and pm peak hours. The intersection of Santiago Road and Ynea Road will maintain a Level of Service "B" during am and pm peak hours. Grading and Drainage The site will require the export of 18,696 cubic yards of material. This will be necessary to create a buildable site for the project. The topography of the project will ultimately be similar to the adjacent uses. The majority of the site will drain to the north after grading is completed for the project. The applicant has provided a preliminary drainage study, and based upon this study, the drainage to the south has been reduced to level less than the current situation. Further, the study indicates that existing faeilines to the north are able to accommodate the hieteased drainage from the project. The project, as designed, will adequately handle the rate and amount of surface runoff generated. Noise The site is currently vacant and development of the land will result in increased noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project cotrid have the potential to impact adjacent residences. Activity areas/play areas will be utilized by children during the daytime hours. According to the applicant, these areas will be used in the following manner: recess for grades K-3 will be ~fleen min~ltes in the morning; grades 4-8 do not take a morning recess; and each class has a 30 minute physical education class in the afternoon from 12:00 - 3:00 Monday through Thursday. While noise will increase, it will not be considered unacceptable per General Plan standards. There will be no school bells, which are commonly used at school sites. R:\STAFI~,FI~5pA96.PC 511196 mf 3 Concerns of Adjacent Residents Staff received t~o leuers regardin5 this project prior to the DRC meeting (reference Attachment No. 5). One was writlBn on behalf of the property owner to the south of the project. He voiced concerns from aesthetic impacts, noise impacts and drainage impacts. John Rodgets (who wrote the letter on behalf of the resident) met with Staff after the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting and slated that the impacts were addressed from his perspective and tint he felt that the property owner would be satisfied. Staff requested an updated leuer; however, this leRer was not submitled. Staff received a. leuer from the Rancho Highlanda Homeowners' Association. Both the Rancho Highlands HOA and Los Ranchitos HOA were transmitted site plans of the project at the DRC stage. Only the Rancho Hi~hlandn HOA responded to the project lransmittal. Staff provided the leVters to the applicant and asked them to respond to the concerns. The applicant provided a letter to Staff addressing the concerns (reference Atmchraem No. 6). Staff encouraged the applicant to contact the adjacent HOA' s prior to application submittal and once again after the letter was received. The applicant is scheduled to meet with the President of the Rancho Highlands HOA on May 1, 1996 to discuss their concerns. The results of this meeting are not available as of the writing of this report. A third letter was received from a resident who lives directly across from the project (reference Attachment No. 5). In his letter, the issues of traffic, safety, project density, architecture and noise are raised. The applicant addressed his first series of concerns (raised at the Planning Department) in a letter (reference Attachment No. 6). The applicant is scheduled to meet with the resident on May l, 1996 to discuss their concerns. The results of this meeting are not available as of the writing of Lhis report. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan I and Use desigmtion for the site is VL (Very Low Density Residentiai .2-. 4 dwelling units per acre). The zoning for the sire is SP (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan). The General Plan anticipated development of public/instinttional uses being developed in the residential land use designations "under the procedures established in the Development Cede." The Development Code requires a Conditional Use Permit be granted for educational institutions. The project is governed by the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (and Ordinance No. 348) and approval of a Public Use Permit is required for educational institutions. The project as proposed is consistent with these doctunents. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initiai Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is for the design, construction and operation of a pre-school and elementary school in a corridor Of Similar uses. The site design is consistent with the provisions contained in the City's Development Code. Potential impacts from noise, traffic, drainage and aesthetics have been addressed in the project design and mitigations are contained in the Conditions of Approval and the !Vlitiga~on Monitoring Program for the project. All structures at the school are primarily one-stery {wi~h lhe exception of the multi-purpose building) and have been designed with some residential characteristics. Staff has concerns regarding the twenty-six foot high multi-purpose building as the scale and massing of the building are not consistent with residential development R:'~TAFFRFI~SpA96,PC 511/96 mf 4 in the area. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission provide direction on this matter. Three letters were submitted_ to Staff regarding this project. Staff feels that the concerns raised in the letters have been addressed. FINDINGS The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The project has been reviewed for consistency with these documents and Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the Goals and Policies contained within the General Plan and the Development Standards contained in the Development Code. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. Adequate buffers have been provided between the site and adjacent uses. The project will be located in a "corridor" of similar educational uses and will be compatible with those uses The site for the proposed condilional use is adequate inside and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading fec'dilies, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Cede. Staff has reviewed the project and has determined that the project is consistent with the Development Code. 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 Goals and Policies contained within the General Plan and the Development Standards contained in the Development Code. These documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that projects are is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Compliance with these documents will assure this is achieved. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 Initial Study - Blue Page 20 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 38 Exhibits - Blue Page 45 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Elevations F. Landscape Plans G. Color and Material Board (not included) Letters to Staff - Blue Page 46 Leuers from Applicant - Blue Page 47 R:\STAFFRPT~SPA%.PC 5/119~ mf 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION 96- R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC 5/1/96 mf {3 PC RESOLUTION NO. 9~- A RESOLUTION OF TIff. PLANNING COM1VIISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AIrPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0035 (CONDITIONAL USE PERM~J TO PERMIT Tmr. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A PRE-SCHOOL AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ON TIlE SOUTH SIDE OF SANTIAGO ROAD, IiVI~!EDIAi'~:LY SOUTH OF ~ INTERSECTION OF SANTIAGO AND QUIET MEADOW ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NO. 922-130-015 WHEREAS, John and Christine McCusker field Planning Application No. PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit), in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, wkich the City has adopted by reference; WI~EREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit), on May 6, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an oppormhity to testif~ either in support or in opposition; WItERFAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit); NOW, TWF. REFORE, THE PLANNING CO1VIMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. F_ktajag~ That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following fmdings, to wit: 1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The project has been reviewed for consistency with these documents and Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the Goals and Policies contained within the General Plan and the Development Standards contained in the Development Code. 2. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed use wffi not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. Adequate buffers have been provided between the site and adjacent uses. the project will be located in a "corridor" of similar educational uses and will be compatible with those uses. R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC 511196 mf 7 3. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate inside and shap~ to accommodn_te.the yards, wnl!~, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. Staff has reviewed the project and has determined that the project is consistent with the Development Code. 4. The natrare of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safe~y and general welfare of the community. The projea is consistent with the Goals and Policies contained within the General Plan and the Development $tnndanls contained in the Development Code. These documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that projects a~ is not detrimental to the health, safety and general weffar~ of the community. Complianco with these documents will assure this is achieved. 5. The decision to approve the application for the conditional use permit is based on substantial eviden~ in view of the record as a whole before the plnnning Commission. Seaion 3. l:~vironmentnl Corrtplinne~. An lnZ~nl Study p~ for ~ pmj~t ~tes ~t ~gh ~e p~ ~j~ ~uld ~ve a sight ~ on ~e en~ment, ~em w~ not ~ a fi~t eff~ ~ thig ~ ~ ~ ~on m~sums de~ ~ ~e Con~ons of Appmv~ have ~n add~ to ~e pmj~t, ~d a Negative ~on, therefor, is hereby Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. Planning Application No. PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit) for the construction and operation of a pre-school and elementary school located on the south side of Santiago Road, immediately south of the intersection of Santiago Road and Quiet Meadow Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-130-015, and subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incoxpomted herein by this reference and made a part hereof. R:\STAi~FRPT~35PA96.PC 511196 mf 8 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 1996. Linda Fahey, Chairman I B'F. RF. 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 6th of May, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING CO1VIMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONF_a~: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRFI~SPA96.PC 5/1/96 naf 9 EXHIBIT A CONDfI'IONS OF APPROVAL CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA96-0035, (Conditional Use Permit) Project Description: Construct and operate an pre-school and elementary school on 3.3 acres. Proposal includes a 1,500 square foot office, a 5,525 square foot multi-purpose room, 16,700 square feet of classroom area, playground area, a non-lighted recreational area and activity areas Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-130-015 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements Within Forty-Eight (49) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0035 is for the construction and operation of a pre-school and elementary school on 3.3 acres. Proposal includes a 1,500 square foot office, a 5,525 square foot multi-purpose room, 16,700 square feet of classroom area, playground area, a non-lighted recreational area and activity areas. Hours of operation for the elementary school shall be 8:30 am to 3:30 pm (Monday through Friday). Hours of operation for the shall be pre-school shall be 6:30 am to 6:00 pm (Monday though Friday). c. Limited "special events" shall be permitted throughout the year. d. There shall be no school bells. R:\STAFFRPT~SpA96.PC 511196 mf 11 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 agent~ 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 Planning Application No. PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit} which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et se~., 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 prGmptly 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. 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 te completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, as approved with Ranning Application No. PA96-0035, or as amended by these conditions. a. A minimum of eighty-four (84) parking spaces shall be provided. b. A minimum of four (4) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. c. Four (4) Class I lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit F, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Material Color Roofing Singles River Rock Wood Exterior Wall Wood Trim Split Face Block Split Face Block Owens Corning Quality - Desert Tan RCP Block & Brick, Inc. - Sierra Blend Ameritone T1-11 - Bardot Blue Ameritone - WW 836 Swiss Coffee Truestone, Inc. - Grey Truestone, Inc. - Charcoal R:',STAFFRFI'~SPA~6.PC 511196 mf 12 Landscape Plane shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, or as amended by these conditions of approval. The applicant shall plant evergreen shrubs on perimeter of the northern parking area to screen headlights. The shrubs shall be maintained at a minimum of three (3) feet in height. 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 Ran 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. 10. A qualified paleontologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a meeting between the paleontologist, Planning Manager, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. 11. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 12. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid. 13. 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. 14. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site, 15. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. R:\STAFFRPT~35PA96.PC 511196 mf 13 Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 16. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager. 17. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 18. 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. 19. 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 '"~hicles 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. 20. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of planrings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning. 21. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 22. 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 23. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative. Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. R:~STA'F~qL~T~3fPA~6,PC 511196 mf 14 24. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 25. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 26. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). 27. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems. 28. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 29. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 30. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 31. Provide an accessible path of travel from the public way to the main entrance. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. 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 will subject the project to further review and may require revision. General Requirements 32. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 33. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within the existing City right-of-way. 34. A copy of the grading plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. 35. All grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. R:~STAFFRFf~SPAgd.PC 511196 xuf 15 Prior to Issuance of · Grading Permit 36. A Pre~ise Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and private property. 37. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works 38. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and 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. 39. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 40. Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 41. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 42. 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. 43. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 44. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. 45. An Area Drainage Ran fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. R:~STAFFRirI~!;PA96,PC 511196 mf 16 46. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works. 47. A Traffic Control Ran shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved by the Department of Public Works. 48. A Signing and Striping Ran shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall cover the full length of Santiago Road from Ynez Road to the Santiago Road bridge over the I-15 freeway. installation of the roadway striping and any signage will be installed by the City at no cost to the applicant. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 49. Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. An Encroachment Permit will be required for any work performed within the City right-of-way. The following design criteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. 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 piped or conveyed to a curb outlet constructed per City of Temecula Standard No. 301. 50. The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works: Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: commercial drive approach, A.C. pavement and handicap ramps b. Erosion control and slope protection R:\STAFFP~Tx35PA96.PC 511196 mf 17 51. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 52. The Developer shall deposit with the Public Works Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 53. 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 f.ee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed 910,000. The Devei:oer 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; ~ that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 54. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Department of Public Works 55. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 56. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 57. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. l~:\STAFFRPT~SpA96.l~C 5/1/96 mf 18 OTHER AGENCIES 58. The alSplicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated April 18, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 59. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Fire Department's transmittal dated April 18, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 60. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated April 3, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 61. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District's transmittal dated March 25, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 62. The applicant shall comply with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated April 22, 1996, a copy of which is attached. I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval. Applicant Name April 18, 1996 Mr. Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 2 2 TSCJ SUBJECT: Water Availability Planning Application Case No. PA96-0035 To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho Caiifomia Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager wp96XSB:mc014/F012/FEF cc: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Manager (909) 694~444 · Fa× (909) 694-1999 April 18, 1996 TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATrN: M_ATrHEV~ FAGAN RE: KIDS WORLD PA 96-0035 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. A fire flow of 2000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. A combination of on-site and off-site super 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 adjacem hydrant(s) in the system. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Departmere for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the job site. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. Prior to the issuanc~ of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a plan check fe~ of $582.00 to the City of Temecula. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. Install a complete fife sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building plans. Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fn'e alarm system. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING The building shall be equipped with a manual and automatic fire alarm system with visual devices, prerecorded voice evacuation message and monitored to a U.L. approved remote receiving station. 10. CLASSROOMS The building shall be equipped with a manual fn'e alarm system with audio/visual devices for occupant notification and monitored to a U.L. approved remote receiving station. 11. Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/snites are protected by a fire or burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. 12. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort. 13. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. Low level exit signs shall also be provided, where exit signs are required by section 3314(a). 14. Install portable fn'e extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement. 15. It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code. 16. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with fire hydrant. 17. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating requ'u~,d fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. 18. Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the street side of the building with a contrasting background. 19. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safet3, Office. 20. Please contact the FLre Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Plarming and engineering section (909)694-6439. Laura Cabral Fire Safety Specialist TO: FROM RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DI ; ! BUTED CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATI'N: Matthew Fagan CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA96-0035 1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA96- 0035 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. 2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b) Three complete sets of plan.q for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 358-5172). c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3. · Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2.) · Waste reduction management. d) A letter from the Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA). Three complete sets of plans for the swimming pool/spa will be submitted, in order to ensure compliance with the California Administrative Code, Califomia Health and Safety Code and the Uniform Building Code. CH:dr (909) 275-8980 NOTE: Any carrent additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health Clearance. Eastern Municipal ",ter D' Matthew Fagan Associate Planner City of Temecula Pla,'ming Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temeeula, California 92590 SUBJECT: March 25, 1996 PA96-0035 (Lot 7, Tract No. 20591) -Agency Case Transmittnl Dear Mr. Fagan: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office a proposal to construct and operate a preschool and elementary school on 3.3 acres which also include a 1,500 square foot office, 5,525 square foot gymnasium, 16,700 square feet of classroom area, playground area, and recreational area and activity areas. As shown on the tfansmittal's accompanying map, the subject project is located along the south side of Santiago Road, 500 feet west of the intersection of Ynez and Santiago Road. It must be understood, the available capacities of the District's systems are continually changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of systems improvement. As suck the provision of services will be based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of the subject project, the status of the District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project. The developer must arrange for the preparation of a detailed plan of service. The detailed plan of service will indicate the location(s) and size(s) of system improvements to be made by the developer (or others), and which are considered necessary in order to provide adequate levels of service. To arrange for the preparation of a plan of service, the developer should submit information describing the subject project to the District's Customer Service Dep,aytment, (909) 766-1810, extension 4467, as follows: Written request for a "plan of service." Minimum $600.00 deposit (larger deposits may be required for extensive development projects or projects located in "difficult to serve" geographic areas). Plans/maps describing the exact location and nature of the subject project. Especially helpful materials include grading plans and phasing plans. Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinto, California 92581-8500 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San )acinto Avenue, San Jacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA Operanons ~ Maintenance Center: 2270 Trurable Road. Perris, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 F~ (909) 928-6177 Matthew Fagan PA 96-0035 March 25, 1996 Page 2 The District encburages the beneficial use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation and other uses in accordance with Title 22 of the California Administrative Code and Eastern Municipal Water District Ordinance No. 68. The design of irrigation systems for subject project landscaped areas must consider the District's water budget criteria and landscape irrigation guidelines. Water budget and landscape irrigation guidelines may be obtained ~'om the District's Customer Service Department. The devdoper must submit informalion which descn%es the subject project's irrigation water/potential reclaimed water demand to the District's Customer Service Department for review. At the time of the District's review, a District detca nlnation will be made regarding requirements for reclaimed water use and/or reclaimed water system improvements. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel flee to contact this office at (909) 766-181 O, extension 4467. Sincerely, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Warren A. Back, P.E. Associate Engineer II Customer Service Department WAB/ J:\WOP, DPROC~WP'CqEW_BUSLIr~WAB',AVERy. ACT DAVID P. ZAPPE General Managcr-ChicfEngineer RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT City of Temecula Plannin Department 43174 ~usiness Park Drive Temecula, Califomia 92590 Attention: ATHEW FAGt N Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: PA 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/275 - 1200 909/788-9965 FAX 7829.1 The Distdct does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The Distdct also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazarq reports for such cases. District comments/racommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities other regional flood control and draina e facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of il master plan system and District Area ~rainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is ~rovided. The District has not reviewed the roposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any wa constitute or imply Distdct approv;al~or endorsement of the proposed project w~th respect to flood hazard. public health; and safety or any other such issue: /' This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves Distdct Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standards and Distdct plan check and inspection will be required for Distdct acceptance, Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required, This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider acceptin ownership of such facdities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. / This project s located withn the mts of the Dstrcfs t~{~,'E'21eT~~, C~--e"~//--- Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; a piicabte fees should be pa~d to the Flood Control District or Ci dor to final ap royal of the pro'ect, or in t~e case of a arcel map or subdivision prior to recordation ;~t~e final map. ~Peles to be paid s~ould be at the rate in eft~ct at the brae of recordation, or if deferred, at the time of issuance of the actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Potlutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation. or other ~al approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt, If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require ~{~e applicant to rovide all studies, calculations, plans and other reformation required to meet FEMA requirements, and should tPurther require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the Ca?ifomia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~PVater Act Section 404 Permit from the U ,~. Army Corps of En ineers, or wdtten correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: 4 ,_ z -9 G ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\STAFFILIq'~SPA~.PC S/l/~mf ~0 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checidkt 2. 3. 4. I0. Project Title: Planning Application No. PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Person and Phone Number: Mathhew Fagan, Associate Planner Project Location: South side of Santiago Road, immediately south of the intersection of Santiago and Quiet Meadow Road Project Sponsor's Name and Address: John and Christine McCusker, 41956 3rd Street, Temecula, CA 92590 General Plan Designation: VL (Very Low Density Residential: .2-.4 dwelling units per acre) Zoning: SP (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan) Description of Project: Design, construction and operation of a pre-school and elementary school on 3.3 acres. Proposal includes a 1,500 square foot office, 5,525 square foot multi-purpose room, 16,700 square feet of classroom area, playground area, a no-lighted recreational area and activity areas. SurroundinE Land Uses and Setting: Single-family residences to the north (Rancho Highlands), pre-school to the east (La Petite Academy), church/school to the west (Temecula Valley Baptist Church) and single- family residences to the south (Los Ranchitos). Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency. R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC 511196 mf 2 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOI~ POTENTL~LLY AFFEUr~D: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise [X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services [X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality IX] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation/Cira~ation IX] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environmere, there will not be a significant effect in this case becaus~ the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signature Date Printed Name For R:XSTAFFRFr~SPA96.PC 51119~ n~ 22 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Issues ~W~-I Supporting: Inform~ti0n Sources. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-1) b. Conflict with applicable enviromental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page b. Seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68) d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hard? e. Landslides or mudflows? f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? g. Subsidence of the land? h. Expansive soils? ~.....: Signla~ant X Significant Impact X X X X No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X R:\STAFFRF~35PA96.PC 5/1/96mf 23 Issues and Supporting Information Sources I. Unique geologic or physical features? 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surfac~ runoff? b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavalions or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater ~mlity? I. Substantial reduction in the araount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality slandard or conwibute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 3, Table 62, Page 6-10) b. Expose sensitive receptors to pellutants? c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Slgni~-~ant lmlm~t I I Pmtntially Sipificanl Unlms X X X sigliG~ X X X X X X X X X X X X R:\STAFFRFr~$pA96.1~C 5/1/96mf 24 b. H~ m ~fe~ ~om d~si~ f~s (~.g. s~ c~es or ~gero~ in~r~c~on or incompatible (e.g. ~ e~pment)? c. I~de~ emergency ac~ss or access ~ nearby ~s? d. I~cient p~Eng capa~i~ on-si~ or off-si~? H~ or b~ers for ~des~i~ or bicyclism? f. Co~ic~ wi~ adop~d policies ~ppo~ng al~five ~om~on (e.g. b~ ~oum, bicycle rac~)? g. ~il, wa~rbome or air ~a~c impact? 7. BIO~GIC~ ~SO~S. W~d ~e pn~ r~ult ~ ~p~ ~: a. Endgerm, ~ea~ned or ~e ~ies or ~e~ ~bimm (~clu~g but not li~d ~ pl~, fi~, i~c~, ~m~l~ ~d bir&)? b. ~c~ly desired ~cies (e.g. he~ge c. ~ly desired m~ ~es (e.g. oak forest, co~1 ~bi~t, ~.)? d. Wefl~d ~bimt (e.g. marsh, riparian ~d ve~l pool)? e. Wilffiife ~s~r~ or ~afion co~dors? 8. E~RGY ~ ~ ~SO~S. Would ~e prop~: a. Co~ict wi~ adop~d en~rff come~afion plato? b. Use non-renew~ reso~ces in a was~ and inefficient c. Re~t in ~e loss of av~labffi~ of a ~own ~ner~ reso~ce ~at wo~d be of ~e v~ue ~ ~e re,on and ~e residen~ of ~e 9. H~S. W~ld ~e prop~ ~volve: a. A risk of accidenml explosion or rel~se of ha~rdo~ ~bsmn~s (inclu~ng, but not li~d m: pesficid~s, ch~l or ra~afion)? b. Possible in~fference wi~ ~ emergency resume plan or emergency evac~fion plan? X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X R:\STAFFP, Irl~SpA96.1N2 511196 mf 25 l.~uu and 5uppor~n~ Information Som'ces c. The creation Of any health har~rd or potential health baTard? d. Exposure of people to exiSfine sources of potential health b. azar&? e. Incruse fire bnT~rd in ar~as wi~ ~ammable brush, grass, or tre~s? 10. NOISE. Would time proposal r,~ult in: a. Increase in e~dng nois~ levels? b. Hxposure of pe~)ple ~ severe noise levds? 11. lq. IBLIC SER~CES. Wouid the pn)~ have an eff{,ct upon, or n~u|t in and for new or altered government services in any of lhe following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e. Other governmental services? Si~tifie~t X X X X X X X X X X R:\STAFFRFI~35PA96.PC ~/l~ d 26 12. UTILrrH~S AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or subslantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Local or regional water treatment or djstribution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f, Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTIiETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vjste or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c. Create light or glare? 14. CUL3IIRAL RESOU'RCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontelogical resources? b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 2, Figure 56, Page 283) c. Affect hjstorical resources? d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique edmjc cultural values? Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. W~uld the a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreatiorml facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X R:\STAFFP, FT~$PA96.FC $ll196mf 27 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGI~ICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ~tality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential m achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, enviromental goals? c. Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). d. Does the project have enviromental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indizec~y7 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None. X No X X X R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC ~/1/96 mf 28 SOURCE LIST 1 - City of Temecula General Plan 2 - City of Tem~dttta General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 3 - South Coast Air Quality Managemere District CEQA Air Ch,ality Handbook R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC 511196mf 29 DISCUSSION OF TH .~: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I.~nd Use and Planning 1.b. The project will not conflict with appficable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for CEIR) the General Plan. The General Plan anticipated development of public/institutional uses being developed in the residential land use designations "under the procedures established in the Development Code." The Development Code requires a Conditional Use Permit be granted for educational institutions. Further, ~ project is governed by the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (and Ordinance No. 348) and approval of a Public Use Permit is required for educational institutions. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the F_,IR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The applicant will have comply with their policies and plans and will ultimately have to gain approval from these agencies in order to proceed with their project. Based upon this information, there will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact in terms of compatibility with existing land use in the vicinity. The project abuts similar uses. The project will be in an area of singie-family residences. The project will be larger in scale than these residences. Potential mitigations include: perimeter landscaping, use of residential building materials and development style and limitation of heights of the buildings to those existing in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. I.e. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low- income or minority community). Reference response 1 .c. There is an established residential community in the project area. It is not a low-income or minority community. The physical arrangement of the area is such that the proposed project will be located in an area immediately surrounded by similar uses. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Population and Housing The project will not cnmulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project will not be a siEni~cant contributor to population growth which will cnmulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b. The project will net induce substsntial growth in the area either direcfiy or indirectly. The project may cause people to relocate to or within Temecnia; however, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant; therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Geologic Problems 3.b,h. The project will have a less than significant Impact on people involving seismic ground shaking and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active and in proximity of the Wildomar Fault. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. FurLher, soil reports will be R:\STAI~RFrX35pA96.PC 511196 mf 30 3.d. 3.f. 3.g. 3.i. Water 4.a. 4.b. submitted and reviewed as part of the grading permit process and will contain recommendations for the compaction of the soft which will serve to mitigate any impacts from expansive soils. After mitigation measures~are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose people to a seiche, ~,nami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area where any of these h~Tards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose people to lsntt~lides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography, grading or fill. The site will require the export of 18,6% cubic yards of material. This will-be necessary to create a buildable site for lhe project. The topography of the project will ultimately be similar to the adjacent uses. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and the project may 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, hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion con~ol for the project. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There may be a potentially significant impact from subsidence of the land. The project is within an area of potential subsidence (Figure 7 of the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report). Any potentially significant impacts will be miligated through buildinE construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Cede standards. Fur~er, soil reports will be submitted and reviewed as pan of the grading permit process and will contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any impacts from expansive soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by censlruction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. Drainage of the site will be modified with the majority of the site draining to the north. The applicant has provided a prehininary drainage study and based upon this study, the drainage to the south has been drastically reduced. Further, the study indicates that existing facilities to the north will be able to accommodate the increased and modified drainage from the project. The project as designed will adequately handle the rate and amount of surface runoff generated. Conditions of approval will be added to the project to assure that this is accomplished. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project may have a potentially significant impact to people and property to water related hazards such as flooding. The project is located within a data inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency response systems and by assuring that these system continue to maintain adequate service provision as the City develops. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required R:\STAFFPd?T~SPA96.PC ~11196 mf 3 ] to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be perilfitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.d,e. The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will oc~r because previously permeable ground will be rondored impervious by coustruction of buildings, accompanying hartscape and driveways. The majority of the surface drainage will be channeled to an inlet on Santiago Road. Du~ to the limited scale of the project, the additional mount of into the Murrieta Creek (its local ultimate destination) w'~l not considered sigm~cam. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.f,g. The project will have a less than significant impact in the quantity or quality of Found waters. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of Found waters; however, due to the scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of Foundwater recharge capability. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.i. The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula Genorai Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currenfiy exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by Raneho California Water District (RCWD). This is typicaily provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.b. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollumnts. There are no significant pollutants in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.d. The project will create objectional odors during the conslruction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. No other odors are anticipated as a result of this project. Transportation/Circulation The project will have a less than significant increase in vehicle triips; however it will add to traffic cengemion. According te Table 1 (Projea Intersection Traffic Contribution to Existing Peak Hour Volumes) from the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the project (dated April 6, 1996 by Robert Kahn®John Kain & Associates, Inc.) weakday peak contribution to the intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road is 70 vehicles at AM peak and 56 vehicles at PM peak. This equates to a 7.8 % and 3.3 % increase respectively. Weekday peak centribution to the intersection of Quiet Meadow Road and Santiago Road is 126 vehicles at AM peak and 10 0 vehicles at PM peak. This equates to a 20.9% and 11.3% increase respectively, Based upon a comparison of information contained Table 2 (Intersection AnalySis for Existing Conditions) and R:XSTAI~T~35PA96.PC 511/96mf 32 Table 5 0ntersec~on AnalySiS for Otgning Year With Project Conditions, the intersection of Ynez Road and Santiago Road will operate at and realmain a Level of Service "B" during ~he AM and PM peak hours. The same analysis was performed for the intersection of Santiago Road and Quiet M~adow Road. This inters~,~ion of will operate at and maintain a Level of S~rvice "A" during the AM and PM peak hours. The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fe~s and public facility fe~s as conditions of approval for the project. Afier mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b. The project will not result in haTard~ m ~'lfiety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is an educational institution in an area with existing uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency awes. The project does not provide direct access to nearby uses; therefore, it will not impact access to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d. The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The applicant has completed a parking needs analysis based upon the uses proposed by this project. Based upon this analysis, there will be sufficient on- site parking spaces provided. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bieycllsts. Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f. The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The project was transmitted to the Riverside Transit Agency CRTA) and their response states: "The proposed project does not impact RTA facilities or services." No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.g. The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists curren~y in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Biological Resources 7.3. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitate, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously graded. Currendy, there are no vatire species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the StepheWs Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.b. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temeeula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7 .b . No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRFI~5PA96.PC 5/1/96 mf 33 7.d. The project will not result in an impact to weftand habitat. There is no weftand habitat on-site or within proximity ~o the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of th/s project. Energy and Mineral Resonroes The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaininE to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. The project will result in a less lhan significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nourenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Hazards The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. Large q, anlities of these types of substances will not be associated with this use. The Department of Enviroumental Health has reviewed the project and the applicant must receive their clearance prior to any plan check submittal. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan cheek stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to he consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is an day-care and pre-schonl in an area of existing similar uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:XSTAFFRPTBSPA96.!~C 511196 mf 34 Noise lO.a. The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant ind development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to no'me in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project could have the potential to im.nact adjacent residences. Activity areas/play areas will be utilized by children during the daytime hours. According to the applicant, these areas will be used in the following manner: recess for Fades K-3 will be fifteen minutes in the morning; grades 4-8 do not take a morning recess; and each class has a 30 minute physical education class in the afternoon from 12:00 - 3:00 Monday through Thursday. While noise wffi increase, it wffi not be considered unacceptable per General Plan standards. The residences to the south and east have the potential to impacteel the greatest from the activity area noise; however, the noise will not exceed 60 CNEL (the acceptable exterior noise standard for residential land uses). Residences to the north will have less impact because the existing CNEL range at 100 feet from the centerline of Santiago Road is 51.7 CNEL (based on Table 8-2 of the City's General Plan). There will be no school bells, which are commonly used at school sites. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term. 10.b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the developmentkonslruction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Public Services 11 .a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a restfit of this project. ll.c. The project not have an impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project is a school fac'tlity. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered additional school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ll.d. The project will have a less lhan significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. ll.e. The project wffi not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Utilities and Service System~ 12.a. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.b. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~STAFFKPT~5PA96.PC S/1/96 mf 35 12.c. 12.a. The project will not result in the need for new sysmms or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in a n~l for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or seplic tsnks. While lhe project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in the'tr services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not signi~can~y impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanh on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.e. The proposal will result in a less than significant ne, ecl for new systems or supplies, or subsumtial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide sems addilional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. Reference response No. 4.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.[ The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or subslantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.g. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Aeslhe~cs 13.a. The project will net affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a restfit of this project. 13.b. The project will have than significant negative aesthetic effect. Although the project is similar to the other school uses in the area, it does propose a twenty-six (26) foot high multi-purpose building. The overall scale and massing of the building has the potential to stand out in the surrounding area. The building will be articulated on all four sides and the scale and rosssing will be broken up by fills articulation. Further, proposed landscap'rag will provide additional aesthetic enhancement. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the pou~'ntial to impact the Mount Palemar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 14.a. The project could have a potentially significant impact to palcontological resources. the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element identifies the area as having a high probability of containing remains and fossils. The project will be conditioned to have a ~mli~ed paleontologist to monitor the grading. The monitor Shall have the authority to temporarily redirect or stop the grading to recover significant fossils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipatexl as a result of this project. R:~STAFFRFr~SPA96.PC 5/1/96mf 36 14.c,d. The project will not affect historical resources or have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. None exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e. The project will not reslrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Recreation 15.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPTMlSpA96.PC 5/1/96 mf 37 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 Mrr GATION MONITORING PROGRAM Mitigation Monitoring Program l~annin~o Application No. PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Pet,nit) l,and Use and PInnni~ General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Potential in-compatibility with existing land use in the vicinity. Provide perimeter landscaping, use of residential building materials and development style and limitation of heights of the buildings to those existing in the area. Submit conswuction drawings and landscape plans consistent with the approved plans. Prior m the is~mnee of a building permit. Planning Department Geologic Problems GeneralImpact: MitigationMeasure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic Found shaking. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Public Works Department and Building and Safety Depat h.ent. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Modimring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit consauction plans to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department. R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC 5/1/96 mf 39 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: R:\STAl:FRFrBSPA96.1~C 511196 mf Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, gradlnE or fill. Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457. Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Pubr~c Works. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, gracllnE or fill. Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with Ordinance No. 348. Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. planning Department Exposure of people or property to subsidence of the land. Ensure that soft compaction is to City standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Depax httent of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department. Exposure of people or property to subsidence of the land. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department Water General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Transportation/Circulation General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and mount of surface runoff. Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will be included on die Fading plans. Submit grading and drainage plan to the Depat huent of Public Works for approval. Prior to the is~mnce of grading permit. DeparWaent of Public Works Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Deparlment of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts. Post bond @ $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000 and execute agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. Prior to die issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works R:\STAFFRPT~35PA96.PC 511196 mf 41 General Impact: Mitigation Measur& Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee. Pay pro-ram share for traffic impacts (to be determined by the Director of Public Works. Prior to lhe issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Biological Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site. Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate the use. Install on-site parking spaces. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works, Planning Department and Building & Safety Department. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). Pay Interim Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Pay $1,950.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephem Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and Planning Depariment R:~STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC 5/1/96 raf 42 P!lbllc Sel'vices General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision. Payment of Fire Mitigation Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Riverside County Fire Department. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Department General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Aesthetics General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Payment of Public Fae'dity Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public facilities. Post bond @ $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000, and execute agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Depadment of Public Works The project will have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. No impacts are anticipated. Incorporate the multi-purpose building into the surrounding area architecturally. Provide elevations that are complementary to the existing development. Prior to issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Cultural Resonrces General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory. Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Bullcling and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety Department. Potentially impact paleontological resources. Monitor the Fading process. A qualified paleontologist shall monitor the grading process for the recovery of fossils. During the grading of the site. Planning Department. R:\STAFFRFr~SPA96.PC 511196mf 44 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 E~HiKITS R:\STAFFP. PT~SPA96.PC 5/1/96 mf 45 CITY OF TEMECULA L 15 CASE NO. - PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT- A VICINITY MAP "' '.ANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 R:\STAFFRFI~35PA96.PC 4/29/96mf SP CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - SP {RANCHO HIGHLANDS SPECIFIC PLAN) EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - VL (VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - .2-.4 DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE) CASE NO. - PA96-0041 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT- D · ANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 SITE PLAN R:\STAFFIFrx35PA96.PC 4/29/96 mf CITY OF TEMECULA SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION · NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION CASE NO. - PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 ELEVATIONS: OFFICE CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT - E ELEVATIONS: CLASSROOMS '/~,NNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 R:\STAFFP, l~\35PA96,PC 4/29/96 mf CITY OF TEMECULA !'_:'ll!lliilllll " i:lii ll' EAST EZ~FV~TK~N CASE NO. - PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT - E ELEVATIONS: CLASSROOMS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 R:XSTAFFRPT~SPA96.PC 4/29196 mf CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT- E ELEVATIONS: CLASSROOMS '~LANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 R:~STAFFRPTX35PA96.PC 4/29/96 mf CITY OF TEMECULA EAST ELEVATION CASE NO. - PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT - E ELEVATIONS: MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA NORTH ELEVATION ': -'-*" ' Z:-__,- ! · "' =2. _":"'. ' . . .....-:__' _ :~: . =- ' .=_-:-_.::_:':: ......': ." :! ,. :~,45:Z-~ -:,,*,;,:,', ?~,',, .....::---=- - ....=,: ,', ,y. 'a ,~'.,'!,'. WEST ELEVATION CASE NO. - PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit) EXIHRIT - E ELEVATIONS: MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING '%ANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA I CASE NO. - PA96-0035 (Conditional Use Permit) EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 6, 1996 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:\STAFFILrj~SPA96.PC 4129196 mf ATTACHMENT NO. 3 LE'Ft'ERS TO STAFF FWed~esday Harch 27, 1~96 12:A:~m -- Page 21 .... " Ma'r-27-96 12:30P Ranch~ H~gh~ands Ma~ch 27, 1996 Ib lltu esQ .mmlm'AssomTm 27393Yne. zRcad. Sdte262 Temecula. CA92.591 (SO9) 699-~gm Fax: (909) 699-0522 Matthew lagan Oty d'Ternecuta Planning Department 43174 Business Pa,'k Drive Ternect~a, CA 92590 P,E: PLANNING APPUCATION NO. PA96-1X)35 - KID'S WORLDNAN AVERY PREP SCHOOL We Fee received the plans for t~e above referenced application and are Fesponding as requested for the meeting o~ March 28, 1996. We as the Board of Directocs have sevcr'al are, as or corr..ern that we woe, J:l like addresstd by 'bhc Development Review Cornn'~ee: E~,'---~e trafr, c on Sar~ and Quiet Meadow Roads 5 days a ~eek, 2 l~nes a day (potential for peop~ using Quiet Meadow Road as a 'cut-<~T ' route frcyrn Ynez); Potential ~ rdrnc violat/c~s by parents dropphg off xhe~ children (tJ4'urns, speeding when late. err_ ); Potential ~ congestion at Quiet rgeadow ~ - is there a stop light planned b ~s intersection? The homeowrers currently have some ditcutty ex~ng Quiet Meadow onto Santiago and have coreeros t~u~t l~is will v,o'sen; Weth~riy~uf~r~re~pp~r~ax1~tyz~e~ur~pir~n~nthispr~jectand~kbrwa~t~hearingfr~m you,sock. Sincerely, Bill Cecil, President BC~k March 27, 1996 Mr. Melthew Fagan Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590~3606 Re: Proposed Kid's World/Van Avery Prep School PA 96-0035 Dear Mr. Fagan, By FAX 694-6477 RECEIVED MAR 2 '7 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENt Please consider the following issues with rasped to subject project as it affects the property of Mr. & Mrs. George H. Graynor. They are the owners of Lot 3, Tract 3552, Book 56 Pages 63-66, located at 28841 Vallejo Avenue, Temecula, immediately South of the proposed school. DRAINAGE The drainage pattern es proposed is inappropriate for the situation. Although a portion of Lot 7 Trad 20591 (the property proposed for development) drains in its natural condition towards the Grayner's land, once it is developed as institutional property, with paved areas, buildings. and irrigated turf, a drajnage pattern following the original natural path should be ellowed only in the absence of any viable alternative. A much more appropriate solution in this case is to have the applicant construct a stem1 drain system on site. directing all of the njnoff from the developed property into Santiago Road_ The impact of diversion to the Santiago ROad basin will need to be analyzed, but the incremental increase in tributary area over that already proposed should be negligible. The conceptual grading plan shows a grade difference of over 10 feet from the Southerly end of the properly to Santiago Road - certainly enough to allow for the installation of a storm drain and curb outlet. 2. NQISE: Plans indicate an outdoor athletic field adjacent to the Grayner's land. To the North of the grass field are hard couds and a gymnasium. There Is little doubt that these facilities will host noise-generating activities for most of the day. Although the landscape plan shows 'Mounded Planting at Perimeter of Field. 4'=0' Maximum Height", these sam mounds are not shown on the grading plan, nor is there room provided on the grading plan to accommodate both the required slopes and these mounds. An effort must be made to 27393 Ynez Road. Suit~ 154. Temecule,'CA 92591-4605. Telephone (909) 676-25___~. FAX (909) 6994591 200 E;,NBNIBN":I S8~90,~' 9NBE)N'q c~'qN.AV~9 EGc;CGG9GOG ~O:OI -'~-80-9GG.~ It abed -~ , ~-65£669606, moj.i ,_ weS,~:8 966L 'ZZ qoJeN Aepslup~t Mr. Matthew Fagan March 27, 1996 Page 2 shield the Grayner's property from the school-yard noise. Numerous CALTRANS studies have shown that landscaping is not effective in this respect, and that physicalbarriers - either mounds or sound walls - are needed for effective noise mitigation. 3. VISUAL IMPACT: If the grading design is modified to drain the athletic field North instead of South, as requested, the potential exists adjacent to the Grayner's property line for a slope which may be 12 feet or more in height. With four- to six-foot mounds or a six-foot sound wall at the top of slope, the visual impact will be considerable. Along the Grayner's boundary the landscape plan shows seven pepper trees and two sycamores, together with myosporum and lantana, ce~ainly not dense planting by any definition. The proposed gymnasium is also a concern. It will presumably be a rather tall building with a parapet height of 35 or 40 feet. Will it be visible from the Grayner's residence? What measures will be taken to screen it with landscaping or other, vise mitigate its visual impact upon the residences to the South? Please understand that the Graynero do not oppose the project itself, and they believe that it is a very appropriate use of the site. They have confidence in the City's development review process, and trust that you will give full consideration to the issues raised heroin. Larry Cooley, Temecula Public Wo~s 694-6475 Jack Munroe, Engineering Ventures 699-3569 Michael J. Brewer 44113 Northgate Avenue, Temecula, California (909) 699-4563 RECEIVED APR 2 6 1996 is'd. ...... April 23, 1996 Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner Temecula Planning Department City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RE: PA96-0035 Conditional Use Permit - Kid's World Dear Mr. Fagan: As we have discussed in our conversations, I have a number of concerns related to the development of a preschool and elementary school on the 3.3 acre site on the south side of Santiago Road. As you know, our residence is located directly across the street from the project and is most likely to be impacted by this proposal. I have spoken with a number of my neighbors who tend to echo my concerns, and would appreciate your attention to these issues. The foremost concern I have is for the pubic safety, including myself and family, my neighbors and their families and the children that will attend the school. In that context, I am apprehensive about increasing the traffic congestion in the area, particularly on Quiet Meadow which will become a natural short cut for parents dropping off and picking up their children. Our neighborhood is already experiencing problems with speeding on Quiet Meadow, in fact one of my neighbors was hit twice backing out of her drive way. Moreover, the very residential nature of the street, with children playing, already makes us sensitive to the current traffic flow. Besides increased traffic, to my knowledge, the current plans do not provide for a cross walk for childran whose parents decide to drop them off in the mornings on the north side of Santiago, which would be during peak usage. Nor do the plans include a left turn lane, or signal to be installed at the intersection of Quiet Meadow and Santiago. At some peak times, it is already difficult to exit our development via Quiet Meadow, therefore I'm fearful that if the necessary improvements to the intersection are not made prior to additional development on Santiago Road, the number of traffic accidents will increase. In addition to public safety, I'm uneasy about the intensity of the proposed use. As currently depicted the school will consist of a 1,500 square foot office, a 5,525 square foot multi-purpose room and 16,700 square feet of classroom. According to the floor plans there will be 21 classrooms, with potentially 15 students per room, which equates to an enrollment of 315 students. However, I have been told that the traffic study was based on 250 students, while the applicants letter dated 4/4/96 indicated that the anticipated enrollment was 280 students excluding the eight grade. Given the discrepancies in the enrollment figures, it is important to establish the an accurate enrollment figure prior to granting the use permit. In either case, the proposed numbers seems to be excessive given that our inquires to the ratio of students per acre in public schools is 50 while the ratio for this project is at a minimum of 75.75, which is at least 50% greater. In addition to the intensity of this particular use, this project must be considered in the context of the other uses on the street. On the east side of the project the La Petite Academy is licensed for 160 students with 2.89 acre parcel, on the west side the Temecula Valley Baptist School has enrollment of 130 on 3.66 acres, while the Hillcrest Carden School is licensed for 250 students on 4.16 acres, thus we currently have 540 students per day attending school in the immediate vicinity. The addition of another 250 to 315 students to the area would only aggravate the undue concentration of this use in our neighborhood. In addition, the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan designated the parcels on the south side of Santiago as very low density residential with the intent for those properties to be equestrian lots. Although this designation has been disregarded in the past, it would be detrimental to our community to continue to do so. Another of my concerns relates to noise. The topography of the area is conducive to carrying noise, For example, most residents are currently disturbed by the dirt bike track's Public Announcement System which is located on the other side of the river. I 'm very wary of increasing the level of noise in the neighborhood because we are already impacted by the existing schools, traffic and the freeway. If the school is to be constructed, it is important the building reflect the architecture style of the old church that is located on the adjacent property. Moreover, the landscaping should mirror the north side of the street so that the continuity of the neighborhood is maintained. The landscaping should also be used to minimize the impact of headlights and other reflections into our homes as well as to reduce the negative visual affect a project of this size would have on the neighborhood. In addition to landscaping, a number of operating issues should be resolved prior to issuing the permit. It is my understanding that the plans cell for two lawn play areas in front of the preschool and elementary classrooms, these areas should be relocated behind the buildings so that the buildings will act as a noise buffer. I would also like to see a property traffic flow plan that would reduce the potential problems caused by parents dropping off and picking up their children. The operating hours should also be limited to no earlier than 7:30 ,am. In response to some of my questions, the applicant stated that there would be no bell system. I would like to see a condition prohibiting any bell or PA system from being used on the property for other than emergency proposes. Furthermore, the applicant stated that the facility would not be used on weekends except for three times a year, therefore a condition limiting the weekend use of the project would be appropriate. Similarly a maximum number of students must also be established. In summary, as currently proposed this project is unacceptable and would be detrimental to my neighborhood. Additional attention must be given to the impact this project would have on public safety and the quiet enjoyment of our property, Therefore, I urge you to recommend denial of this project until further modifications are made, Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Michael Brewer ATTACHMENT NO. 6 L~'ITERS FROM Tltl~ APPLICANT R:\STAFFRPT~SPA96.PC 5/1/96 mf 47 Kid's World Preschool 41956 Third Street · Temecula, CA 92590 909 · 676 · 5445 April 4, 1996 Dear Mr. Fagan, As per your request we have addressed the following issues that might be of concern to any of our surrounding neighbors. Kid's World Preschool and Elementary School had been in existence on Third Street in Temecula for the past twenty years. As the original founders and owners (John and Christine McCusker) we will be the owners of the new site when we move from Third Street. Kid's World has been chosen one of the top ten schools in California and we pride ourselves on giving back to the community. Standard hours of operation: Elementary School 8:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. Preschool 6:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. In choosing the above hours we took into consideration the surrounding schools and offset Kid's World hours by 1/2 hour in the morning and 1/2 hour in the afternoon and evening to avoid any sort of traffic congestion. At this time we can assure you that 90% of our parents use Santiago Road to come and go to our current facility on Third Street. RECEIVED APR O 1996 is' ........... II. Hours of operation for any special events Christmas program: weekday evening prior to December 15th, hours 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. Science Fair: weekday evening in January, 6:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. Preschool graduation: the morning of a school play in June 10:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. When doing school plays we always do 2 per Saturday. The first being 12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. and the second from 4:00 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. with a maximum of 6 plays per year using only 3 Saturdays a year. Kid's World prides themselves on not asking their teachers to work on weekends or evenings, so there will be very limited school functions in the evening or on weekends. Ill. The overall number of students per age group. 2 years-4 years Preschool Approximately 100 5 years Kindergarten Approximately 30 6 years First Grade Approximately 30 7 years Second Grade Approximately 30 8 years Third Grade Approximately 30 9 years Fourth Grade Approximately 15 10 years Fifth Grade Approximately 15 11 years Sixth Grade Approximately 15 12 years Seventh Grade Approximately 15 13 years Eighth Grade - 1998 IV. The overall functioning of the site The site will be utilized for an on site preschool and Elementary School Vo Open field area and multi-purpose room When planning the location of the field area we took into consideration it's location so it would be a buffer between any other surrounding properties. The field area along with the hard surface area (located in the middle) and the multi-purpose room will be available for use at recess, thus eliminating any high density of play in any one area. Recess times for grades Kindergarten - Third: 15 minutes in the morning. Grades Four - Eight do not take a morning recess. Each class has a 30 min. P.E. class in the afternoon from 12:00 - 3:00 Monday thru Thursday. VI. Current client base The Summit, Los Ranchitos, Meadowview, Murrieta, Lake Village, Red Hawk and the greater Temecula area VII. Other operations It has been our policy at Kid's World for the past 20 years not to rent or lease the facility weekdays or weekends to any other parties for any other type of operation and will continue with this policy. John McCusker Christine McCusker PRIVATE SCHOOL 4/16/96 Dear Mr. Fagan, The following are answers to some recent questions that have come up regarding the Kid's World / Van Avery Prep site. Will there be school bells? No. Van Avery Prep does not have a bell system. Where will the drop-off zone be for all classes? Inside along the left side of the buildings for Elementary and inside along the right side of the buildings for the preschool. Will there be a coordinator directing parents on and off campus. Yes. We will have a coordinator directing drop-off in the morning and pick-up in the afternoon. What is the number of students attending LaPetite and their hours. They are licensed for 160 students but are not at full capacity. and their operating hours are 6:00 a.m. tiff 6:30 p.m. What is the number of students attending Temecula Valley Baptist. There are 130 students and their school hours are 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Will the headlights be screened? Yes, by a hedge of shrubs. RECEIVED APR 17 1996 J s'd, - ........ 41956 Third St. · Temecula, CA 92590 . 909-676-5445 Do your parents carpool? Yes. What is the percentage of families that have more than one student? Currently, 50% which means the traffic is cut in half. Will they stay with the 250 number of students given to the traffic study? Yes. What is the benefit of having Kid's World / Van Avery Prep versus a church or church school expansion? Kid's World / Van Avery Prep parking lot will not be used on Saturday and Sundays for services. We will not be renting any of the classrooms or multi- purpose room to the public for use in the evenings or weekends. Mr. Fagan if there are any more concerns regarding our project we would like to address them before our hearing on May 6, 1996. Once again thank you for your complete cooperation and concerns regarding our project.