HomeMy WebLinkAbout091696 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
September 16, 1996, 6:00 PM
Rancho Callfornia Water District's
Board Room
42135 Winchester Road
Temeeula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Fahey
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, 3olty~ialr and Webster
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minule~l is provided so members of the pubic can address ~he
not listed on Ihe Agenda. Speakers are limited to ~ffee (3) minutes each. If
Commi.~sioners alx~ut an ilem n~t listd~d on the Agenda, a pink 'Request to Spe~k'
. . ,..
For all olher a~t,.la i~ms s
Commission gets
stale
wi~h the Planning Secretary before
ime limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC
4. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
(Development Agreement)
West of Yna Rmtd, north of _Preece___ Lane, east of Interstate 15
Amendntent and Restatement of Development Agreesneat No.
5 for Planning Area No. 8/9 & 12 (Final Tract Maps 22761 and
22762), within'Specific Plan No. 180 - Interim Public Facility
Fees
Negative Declaration
Matthew Fagan
Recommend Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
I':n~ ironmenlal.~:%Cti~:..
Planner:~g_~.
Reco un
Case
Applica t:
Localioa~t~z:P~.~: ......
Proposed:
En~i
Planning Application No. PA96-0090 (Development Plan)
Rich Byer
Southside of Winchester Road, west of Dinz Road
Construct two 17,000 square foot industrial buildings on two
different parcels
Mitigated Negative Declaration
David Hogan
Approval
Planning Application No. PA96-0170 (Development Plan - Fast
Track)
Alan Orr - Napa Auto Parts
North side of Sanborn Avenue, three hundred fifty (3~0) feet east
of the intersection of Jefferson and Sanborn Avenues
The design, construction and operation of a 12,500 ~
Naps Aulo Parts Facilil~ ...... :;',;,::"' //
Mitigaled Negative [k"cfaration ...... :.:;.~::~. .,.;~f2'
Matthew Fagan ,...:;~'.~.¢" ....' .. ~.-.:.'. ~';"~"~"'
Appro~val ..., .............
. Planning (Ik, vehlpment Plan- VaM
and Count) Center Drive
of a 7'. ,582 sqpare fool
'prises
1.108~)
mida [k, Ventat~ (Ze,m
Io rc.%lriclL~l aC£C.~ IMI
RCCIMIIIIlelIdaliO~:
9. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmeatal Action:
Plmmer:
Recoramendation:
Planning Application No. PA96-0190 (Development Plan, Fast
Track)
Zevo Golf/John Hoffee
Northwest corner of Dinz Road and Ave~i_'da de Ventas (Zevo
Drive)
The design and aromamaim of a 23.%249 square foot office/light
manufacturing badlding, associated parking, landscap'rag and a
test golf driving range on 18.8 acres. Zero Golf will ~__,_.py
117,88~ square feet of the building, with 117,364 square feet
untoremitted to any specific use at this time
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Matthew Fagan
Approval
10. Case No:
Workshop - Planning Applicat~ No. PA96-01S7 (Lucky
Shopping Crater)
PacifieDevdopmmtComultams
NordassteornffotHwy79SouthandMargarltaRm~d
Comu/sdm~anddbmmtm~iwanlam'ysit~,landseal~
mad building aleration plans for a proposed shopping crater.
Craig Ruiz
Case No: City-Wide Design Gui~,i,~s
Applicant: City of Temeeula
Location: City-Wide
Proposal: The Gui~alinu will be used in the design, construction, review
and approval of commercial, industrial and ruidential
devdopmentinTemecida. 11t, y wHI be used to provide dlreetlon
to persons in the devdopment COmmQBity With
development sLQndards in the Cit~.
Environmental '~~. Exempt
Planner: . : 'L*.: ~... · Craig Ruiz
'"""
,~- a.. 1996 Plannin
PLANNING REPORT
PLANNING
ITEM #2
FLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 15, 1996
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, July
15, 1996, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road,
Temecula, California. Chairman Fahey presiding.
PRESENT: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster, Fahey
Also present were Community Development Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Rubin D.
Weiner, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Senior Rannet John Meyer and Principal Engineer Steve Cresswell.
The minute clerk was absent.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:05 P.M. There were no requests
to speak.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Aooroval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven end seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the
agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Webster, Soltysiak
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: None
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
Aporoval of Minutes
2.1
Approval of Minutes December 4, 1995
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
approve the minutes.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
3 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
2 COMMISSIONERS:
Miller, Slaven, Webster
None
Fahey, Soltysiak
R:\~LANCOffi~\MINUTES\1996\071596.gC 9/10/96 klb
PLANNING COMMISSION
2.2
2.3.
2.4
JULY 15. 1996
Approval of Minutes February 5, 1996
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
approve the minutes.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fshey, Miller, Slaven, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: I COMMISSIONERS: Soltysiak
Approval of Minutes May 20, 1996
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
approve the minutes.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Approval of Minutes dated June 3, 1996
Page 4, last paragraph, Commissioner Miller requested the correction that mechanical
equipment on the building be screened so the adjoining buildings cannot see the
mechanical equipment.
Page 5, line 5, Commission Miller requested clarification. Chairman Fahey requested the
correction regarding the columns to read "Commissioner Slaven expressed concern
about the design of the columns."
Commissioner Soltysiak requested the addition for clarification that the applicant agreed
to add additional treatment on the elevation facing the freeway.
Page 3, Commissioner Miller requested the correction to change the second the Shell
Station to Texaco Station.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve
the minutes as corrected.
R:\PLANCC~H\HINUTES\1996\071596.PC 9/10/96 klb 2
PLANNING COMMISSION
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
JULY 15,1996
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
None
None
Aoproval of finding for convenience or necessity for a Beer and Wine License for PA96-
0128. ARCO AM/PM. Southeast Corner of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road
Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report for off-site sale of beer and wine. The
service station and convenience market associated with this item were approved at a Director's
Hearing on July 3, 1996.
Commissioner Slaven stated that at the May 20, 1996 meeting the Commission requested staff
provide some criteria for the finding of convenience.
Senior Planner Dave Hogan stated the criteria was not complete at this time.
Applicant Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing ARCO stated this ARCO
station will be similar to the aesthetics of the ARCO on Ynez Road. It will operate on a 24 hour
basis. There will be no arcsde games and they will not allow loitering. ARCO prefers not have
any pay phones on site to also discourage loitering. They will have the standard food service
menu; this is a company owned store and not a franchise. ARCO has provided information to
the Commission on past community contributions by ARCO including Temecula and Murrieta.
Relative to the Chaparral High School - The ARCO Station will be 134 feet across a six lane
highway, not including turning lanes and breakdown lanes. The distance from building to
building is approximately 600 feet as the crow flies. The walking distance from the front door
of ARCO to the front door of the school is approximately 1/4 mile, that is measured walking
along the sidewalk, not as the crow flies. The school will be a closed campus and ARCO does
not anticipate any problems. ARCO has had other instances where they have been in far closer
proximity to educational facilities and have ARCO representatives available to illustrate this
point.
Mr. Markham stated this property was zoned Commercial in the mid-80s as part of the
Roripaugh Hills Specific Ran and has remained Commercial subject to a development agreement
and that predates the purchase of the high school property. He stated he believes the high
school property was originally zoned Ught Industrial and was purchased by the high school with
the purpose of constructing a high school a couple of years ago. That commercial property at
that time did have an approved plot plan for a mini-market type facility. This is a redo of that
approved plot plan and there is also an approval to the east for a supermarket, drugstore type
facility which will come and request liquor, beer, wine sales which is typical. ARCO requests
that the commission grant the approval and the findings of convenience and necessity.
Chairman Fahey requested the applicant to address public necessity or convenience.
Mr. Markham referred to the map. The only alcohol licenses that have been granted east of
Ynez Road are the Chevron Station (Costco Center), Costco, Texaco Food Mart at Murrieta Hot
R:\PLANC0~4~\MINUTES\1996\07~596.pC 9/10/96 klb 3
PLAr~NING COMMISSION JULY 15, 1996
Springs Road. Mr. Markham informed the Commission that all three ARCO stores in Temecula
are company owned,
Commissioner Soltysiak expressed concerns about hours of operation, hours of alcohol sales,
employee age requirements, and alcohol sales advertising. Larry Markham responded that the
hours of operation are 24 hours, standard state law hours of alcohol sales is 6:00 a.m. to 2:00
a.m. Minimum age requirement is 21. Mr. Markham state he did not believe there were plans
to advertise alcohol sales but he will defer to Mr. I.inscogg. There is no proposed take out food
service such as a Taco Bell or a Subway. He reiterated there would be no video games. In
response to the question of individual container sales of beer, Mr. Markham deferred the
question to Mr. Linscogg. Within the layout of the store, the alcohol is in the rear of the store.
This is a standard ARCO layout, they also discussed this with the Sheriff's Department as to
layout. The Sheriff's Department requested the store face the corner so they can see into the
store as they drive by.
John Linscogg, ARCO Product, 4 Centerpointe Drive, La Palma, responded to the additional
questions. ARCO generally does not advertise in the windows. Their Chief of Security does
his best to keep the windows open for the officers in the street to see what is going on in the
stores when they drive by. In response to sale of individual alcohol containers; the company
has agreed to allow no individual sales but it is difficult to monitor. ARCO does not sell alcohol
or gas to people who are intoxicated.
Commissioner Slaven questioned the age requirement for people who work for ARCO. Mr.
Linscogg responded that employees must be 21 to sell alcohol between the hours of 10 p.m.
to 2:00 a.m. but can be under age end sell alcohol between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Mr. Linscogg stated the employees are very well trained at their facility in Pomona.
Commissioner Miller asked if they would be opposed to a condition that their employees be 21
years or older. Mr. Linscogg was not certain what the company's position would be. If the
Commission felt it was something that would enhance sales to minors they would consider it.
Mr. Ljnscogg stated they have not had a problem with that, especially in Temecula, and have
not been cited by ABC for any violation.-- Part of-the reason ARCO doesn't allow pay phones
and video games is because that does create loitering situations and ARCO does everything
they can to minimize that.
Commissioner Soltysiak inquired about the status of the ABC application. Mr. Linscogg stated
it has not been filed yet but will be shortly.
Commissioner Soltysiak inquired as to how ARCO handles on-site alcohol consumption. Mr.
Linscogg stated employees are instructed to notify the Police if this occurs as well as
cigarettes being used by minors. The policy with respect to cigarette sales is that staff is
trained to check the IO of people to assure they are of legal age to buy either product.
Ralph Salzman, 426 Culver Blvd., Playa del Rey, Counsel for ARCO, stated that the alcohol
license is one that is being purchased and not a new license, it is one in existence already. It
won't be adding to the overall county statistics.
Chairman Fahey stated this is not a public hearing item, although there are several people who have
requested to speak on this item and advised them on the request speak guidelines and allow them to
address the item.
R:\PLANCO~\MINUTF3\1996\071596.PC 9/10/96 klb 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15.1996
Janet Dixon, 31860 Via Cordoba, Temecula spoke representing the Temecula Valley Unified
School District. The ARCO site is directly across the street from Chaparral High School which
is presently under construction, end will be opening in the summer of 1997 for 2,100 students
with expansion planned for 2,400 students within a few years. The school is only 134 feet
from the ARCO site. She said based on Business and Professions Code Chapter 5, Section
23789, paragraph B a license can be refused for a site within 600 feet of a school facility the
Temecula Valley Unified School District is opposing the liquor license to the ARCO Station.
Sonny Salkind, owner of Texaco Food Mart approximately one mile from the proposed ARCO
Station stated he welcomes ARCO in the neighborhood, but to have alcohol sales directly
across the street from a high school he would oppose it. He said he has monitored his center
for five years and they do have a lot of youngsters come in and they police it because they are
open 24 hours.
Ray Tooter, 27420 Balander Court, I live above the proposed site and there are three gas
station mini-marts within a mile and one-half of residents, so I can tell you it is convenient to
get to any of the three existing locations. Two major concerns, first we are putting an all night
liquor store next to a school. Second, he expressed concern with the crime and graffiti that in
residential and school area typically accompany all night liquor stores.
Roberta Tooter, 27420 Balander Court, said alcohol is not acceptable so close to a high school.
She said she blanketed about three blocks in the Roripaugh Hills area and out of those three
blocks I got 44 signatures requesting denial of this liquor license with this AM/PM. ARCO has
three AM/PM's in Temecula, and there are others as well and she and I have a hard time seeing
the necessity for another one.
Del James, 27546 Jon Christian Race, stated he agreed with the previous concerns of the
previous speaker. He is opposed to the sale of alcohol and liquor and he feels the Commission
probably knows this facility should not be built, let alone sell alcohol and liquor.
Mr. Black, 39561 I.inett Circle, spoke in opposition to the application based on the sale of
liquor.
Patricia Keller, 39201 Cellhas Drive, Murrieta, spoke in opposition and suggested that if this
might go through ARCO agrees to have a 24 hour security guard on-site as a deterrent.
Cecilia Axton, 30169 Sierra Madre Drive stated she is opposed to any type of alcoholic
beverages being sold at this location. She volunteers in the community and with the school
district. She doesn't feel this is the right message to send to our kids.
Mark Esbensen, 27311 Jefferson Avenue spoke in favor of the ARCO. He stated there are 30
to 40 acres of commercial at that intersection. There was a Ralph's approved across the street,
but due to the market, that fell apart. He believes we will definitely see a market, drugstore,
at the site. He stated the owner of the property has $850,000 in assessments on his 8.5 acre
site and he has done his share for street improvements and trying to help the situation that has
buried him in assessments.
Chairman Fahey, asked if Mr. Markham to address the Commission before they consider the Item. He
asked Ralph Salzman to speak.
R:\PLANCO~I~\HINUTES\1996\071596.pC 9/10/96 klb 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15.1996
Ralph Salzman, provided clarification on the statute that was cited. He stated the statute
23958.4 calls for municipalities to provide input to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control as to public necessity or convenience. The only individual who spoke on the issue of
public necessity or convenience was Mr. Markham who addressed the issue, that by definition
this is a convenience store, the addition of beer and wine is purely as a convenience to the
customers who come in. It's sales are minimal, however it does provide a convenience to
customers who are already frequenting the store and mainly purchasing gasoline. With respect
to 23958.4, the statute permits the Department of ABC, not the municipality to deny a license
where there is a consideration point. Schools are called consideration points. ABC, during the
conduct of their investigation looks to the school district, sees its distance and talks to school
representatives and then comes to a conclusion as to whether a license should be issued or not.
Commissioner Soltysiak questioned that if the alcohol sales component is.minimal in sales, then
why is this a big issue?
Mr. Salzman, replied we loss customers for gas and other purchased items if they know we do
not sell alcohol and they must go to another store. He clarified for Chairman Fahey that he did
not know if the alcohol license being purchased was one from within the City of Temecula.
Chairman Fahey moved to Commission Discussion
Commissioner Slaven expressed concerns regarding ARCO's difficulty with prohibiting the sale
of single alcohol containers. Due to the difficulty defining "convenience" she recommended
ARCO consider finding a new location more conducive to the type of business they want to
operate.
Commissioner Soltysiak requested clarification from Assistant City Attorney Rubin Weiner on
approval process with a purchased alcohol license or a new alcohol license. Mr. Weiner stated
there would be no difference. He further clarified for Commissioner Soltysiak that Section
23789 is not relevant to the discussion. When ABC considers whether to issue the license they
will consider that as a factor and also consider as a factor whether the Planning Commission
has determined that it serves a public necessity.- ABC will .not consider Section 23789 unless
the Planning Commission has determined that it will serve the public convenience and
necessity.
Chairman Fahey requested clarification, "is it inappropriate to consider within public
convenience and necessity the distanc~ the from the high school?"
Mr. Weiner stated the public convenience and necessity is an undefined term. It does not have
to be defined by the Planning Commission in order to make a determination. Whether the
ARCO located next to a school affects the public is convenience and necessity, would be the
argument. Commissioner Slaven has stated that public convenience includes the public as a
whole. Mr. Salzman's interpretation is more limited as far as your discretion. Obvious things
that would be considered are location to other facilities, whether it's located next to e school
should not be the only factor driving a decision. He recommended the Commission consider a
broader base.
Commissioner Soltysiak requested clarification, if the Commission finds determination for
convenience and necessity can the Commission require certain conditions of approval for
operation?
R:\PIANCCN~\HINUTES\1996\07]596.pC 9/10/96 klb 6
PI ANNING COMMISSION
It was
JULY 15.1996
Mr. Weiner stated there is no law prohibiting the Commission from making a determination that
states 'as conditioned as follows". Mr. Weiner did not know if ABC would translate that into
conditions on the license. The Commission does not really have an approval that they can
condition but since it can make a determination it can state what it desires.
Commissioner Miller and Mr. Weiner discussed the interpretation of public convenience or
necessity.
Commissioner Soltysiak stated, that due to the proximity to the high school, if the applicant
was willing to provide for additional security that should help assist the Commission's decision.
He suggested conditions on sales of individual alcohol container sales, no advertising, reducing
the sale period, not allowing people in the 18 year age group to sell alcohol and things of that
nature.
moved by Commissioner Webster and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the item.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
3 COMMISSIONERS:
2 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
Miller, Soltysiak, Webster
Fahey, Slaven
None
4. ADorovsl of finding of convenience or necessity for s Beer and Wine License for PA95-0092.
Temecula Stage Stoo. Northeast Corner of Front and Sixth Streets
Finding of Public or Necessity for Beer and Wine License for Temecula Stage Stop which
provides local and regional shuttle services. The wine tasting and sales are a component of the
shuttle services to the Wince Country by Temecula Stage Stop.
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner presented the staff report.
The applicant, Ed Dool, 41920 Sixth Street, owner of Temecula Shuttle spoke in support of the
project. Hours of operation will be 9:00 am to 9:00 pm. There will be no games or
entertainment. He said this would be a convenience for tourists.
Planning Commission Discussion
The consensus was that the unicluenese of the project provides for a finding for convenience.
It was moved by Commissioner Webster and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the
item.
R:\91j~NCCI4~\HINUTES\1996\071596.pC 9/10/96 klb 7
PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15. 1996
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4
NOES: 1
ABSENT: 0
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5. Case No:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Fahey, Miller, Soltysiak, Webster
Slaven
None
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA95-0047 Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation
Ran
Temecula Valley Unified School District
Citywide
Enact a school facility impact mitigation fee for future residential
development requiring City Council approval
Exempt
Dave Hogan
Approve a Resolution Recommending the City Council Approve
the District's School Facility Impact Mitigation Plan
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner presented the staff report.
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director stated that Mayor Karel Lindemans is in the
process of contacting developers to see if they would agree to a flat $3.00+ fee across the
board and waive the school mitigation fee on new development. Mayor Lindemans is asking
for consideration for a couple of weeks as he is waiting for response from the developers to set
up a meeting with the developers.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing.
Dave Gallaher, Temecula Valley Unified School.District; 3135ORancho IVista Road, provided
an overview of the mitigation plan and spoke in support of the plan.
Chairman Fahey asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Commissioner Webster stated that within the mitigation plan it was mentioned that by the end
of 1995 all the surplus at the middle school level will be filled. Is that true?
Dave Gallaher stated if your question is, "do we currently have surplus seats at the middle
school level?" The answer is we do not.
Commissioner Webster stated the mitigation plan recommended for approval to the City Council
has revised impact fees from what the school district has proposed. He asked if the School
District agrees with the revised fees the City has proposed?
Dave Gallaher stated the revision between 9400 and 9200, is reasonable to move ahead.
Commissioner Webster questioned how often will it be updated?
R:\PLANCC~H\MINUTES\~996\071596.gC 9/10/96
PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15. 1996
Dave Gallaher stated they will be reviewed with developers on an annual basis.
Commissioner Webster stated the City's consultant recommended the School District improve
their enrollment data. Is that something the School District plans to require information in the
future?
Dave Gallaher responded that it is an excellent suggestion.
Commissioner Soltysiak inquired, does the District have a system that once the fee is paid it's
'ear marked" to go to a specific facility?
Dave Gallaher responded, yes.
Chairman Fahey requested clarification on fees to be imposed on new developments stating
these fees do not reflect cost shifting for those developments that are paying $1.84 now, they
only reflect the impact of the individual development.
Chairman Fahey, opened the hearing for public comments.
Bob Brown, 30333 Via Brise, Temecula. Spoke in support of the mitigation plan.
Adrian McGregor, 34555 Madera de Playa, Temecula, said this is a great plan and spoke in
support of the plan.
Rebecca Weersing, 41775 Yorba Avenue, Temecula, indicated disappointment that the Building
Industry was not present, she spoke in support of the plan.
Kenneth G. Ray, 31647 Pio Pico Road, Temecula, spoke in support of the plan and requested
the Commission forward this agreement to the City Council with a positive recommendation.
Chairman Fahey closed the public comments and moved on to Commission Discussion.
Chairman Fahey stated the Commission's options, including one option from a City Council
Member to continue this item; or to act on the item.
Commissioner Webster requested clarifieation on the County Mitigation Plan Agreement versus
the proposed City Mitigation Plan. Is there a time frame connected between the two?
Dave Gallaher stated this time last year, the Commission voted to approve the resolution and
the City Council approved the resolution. The School District forwarded that resolution to the
County asking if the District set a policy nearly identical to the City's, does that qualify for
consistency? The County responded that it did. However, the County has a sunset clause
that if Districts don't follow with a City and County plan within a year the County will no longer
enforce it. Therefore, this needs to move ahead.
Commissioner Miller stated this has been worked on for a year and we have had this package
for 3 or 4 days. Will it there be great danger if we continue this for two weeks?
Commissioner Webster stated he was ready to move ahead for approval.
R:\PLANCC~f~\MINUTES\1996\071596.pC 9/10/96 klb 9
PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 15. 1996
Commissioner Slaven agreed with Commissioner Webster to move forward.
Commissioner Soltysiak agreed with Commissioner Miller. Further understanding of the plan
is required.
Chairman Fahey mated she could support the issue tonight but feels that if two Commissioners
need an additional two weeks to look at the issues it should be continued.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to continue the
item to the August 5, 1996 Planning Commission hearing.
Chairman Fahey asked for additional questions of staff.
Commissioner Webster requested clarification on how often the mitigation plan should be
updated and if the District intends to improve the data acquisition of student enrollment
numbers to get a better idea of student generation factor.
Chairman Fahey stated that Commissioner Soltysiak requested, based on the red dots on the
chart, how money tracks to particular schools in future capital investment plans.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
Hydro-Scape Products, Inc.
4158 Enterprise Circle North
Develop a warehouse and office facility of approximately 9,994
square feet
Negative Declaration
Stephen Brown
Approval
Chairman Fahey stated this' item was continued from a previous Planning Commission meeting.
Chairman Slaven, mated she needed to abstain, she was absent from the meeting and hadn't read the
minutes or listened to the tapes of that meeting.
John Meyer, Senior Planner, stated this item was presented at the June 17, 1996 meeting.
Staff was directed to work with the applicant in four areas. First, to define what is the storage
and what is the drive aisle generally to the north of the subject building. Second, to confirm
whether or not the fault was located by survey, Third, to provide additional work on site line
analysis to determine the visual impacts from Jefferson Avenue from the Jefferson Creek
Center to the east and from the Burnham Building to the southeast. The overall direction given
to the applicant that adequate screening is attainable to mitigate the visual impacts that are
associated with this usa. On July 12, 1996 Commissioners Miller and Soltysiak met at the site
R:\PIANC~\MINUT~S\1996\071596.pC 9/10/96 klb 10
P! ANNING COMMISSION JULY 15. 1996
and subsequent to that meeting the applicant has provided revised landscape and site plans.
The new site plan shows the area intended for storage and the drive aisle.
John Meyer stated the applicant has upgraded the landscape plan to increase the number of
tree planting along the east side of the site. Commissioners Miller and Soltysiak and the
applicant had a discussion on the height and length of the wall (and effective height of 8' from
the existing graded parking area to the east) and will allow the applicant to provide additional
detail on that.
Staff was not able to locate the original engineering survey on the fault zone. Although, staff
did contact Steve Cupferman, County Geologist who had a personal recollection of this project.
He explained the reason why the fault zone in this case was not two parallel lines was because
they were able to determine the very specific location of the fault; the County will allow a 35'
setback from that specific location when you can do that.
Chairman Fahey asked for questions of staff.
Commissioner Webster asked on Conditions No. 12 and 13, based on these revised exhibits,
are these conditions satisfied?
John Meyer stated "no". On Condition 12, he didn't believe any modifications to the landscape
occurred on the south side of the building. The applicant has provided architectural elevations
showing an awning feature over the entrance, staff feels it needs to be further developed to
meet the concept of strong entry statement.
Commissioner Miller stated on Condition 11 (signage), given the fact that the City is in the
process of trying to adopt a sign ordinance, is it possible to make room for the sign ordinance
when it is adopted.
Rubin Weiner, City Attorney, stated the Commission can make it subject to whichever sign
ordinance is applicable at the time the sign is installed.
Commissioner Miller discussed prohibiting the installation of scissor wire.
Chairman Fahey asked the applicant to speak.
Russell Rumansoff, 27349 Jefferson Avenue, representing the applicant, indicated the storage
area and regarding additional landscaping and suggested placing it next to the trash enclosure.
He said they have removed 4 parking spaces and now have approximately 36° of landscaping
adjacent to the wall. In addition to the landscape they extended the 8' high wall to 104' feet
long. The line of sight exhibit shows the 8', as measured from the top of the wall, is 8' above
the finished surface of the parking area immediately adjacent to the wall (there is an area
planter in the immediate parking surface). He discussed the additional added landscaping and
a metal canopy added to the entry to the building and will work with staff on this.
Mr. Rumansoff stated they will verify the fault zone before they lay the building out. Steve
Cupferman with the County stated that they are in storage and he can get them for us.
Mr. Rumansoff feels they have successfully screened the site with the wall, increased
landscaping and improvements. He feels the applicant complies with zoning, ordinances and
R:\gLANC~\MINUTKS\1996\071596.pC 9/10/96 klb 11
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 15.1996
the General Ran according to the staff report. He further stated the building is tilt up concrete
and will be sand blasted with a blue band at the top of the building. It's a simply designed
building.
Chairman Fahey opened the hearing for public comments.
Mark Esbenaen, 27311 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 103, Temecula stated he doesn't feel it is
consistent with the General Plan, the 8' wall is better than a 6' wall, expressed concern with
the gate staying ope and the storage area being too visible. He spoke in opposition of the
project.
Chairman Fahey opened the Commission Discussion
Chairman Fahey directed the applicant to work with staff on the project and the wall. Mr.
Rumansoff questioned how that fits with the development code and general plan if they go
with the wall.
Commissioner Webster stated they should move ahead and let planning staff deal with the issue
through the permit approval process.
Commissioner Miller stated he cannot make the finding that this conforms to a logical
development of the proposed site, or is compatible with the present and future development
of the surrounding property.
Chairman Fahey asked for a motion.
Commissioner Webster stated he was satisfied with the project as submitted and visual impacts
are addressed in the revised plan and conditions of approval and stated the applicant has gone
above and beyond the call of duty. He moved approval to adopt the negative declaration for
PA96-0008 and adopt the mitigation monitoring program and adopt Resolution 96- . Adopt
PA96-0008 subject to the attached conditions of approval.
Commissioner Soltysiak questioned staff if there is a provision in the Building Code that
prohibits a free standing wall of this height? Gary Thornhill responded, it's just a matter of
engineering. Commissioner Miller, stated the Development Code has a maximum height of 6'.
John Meyer stated there is an inconsistency in the Development Code that shows a table
referencing no height above 6' and another portion in the performance standards that
encourages minimum 8'. There is an implied inconsistency and minor exceptions or variances
to take care of that.
Chairman Fahey asked for further discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Miller made a motion to deny PA96-0008 on the basis the design and condition
is not compatible with present and future development of the property. The motion was
seconded by Chairman Fahey.
R:\PLANCG~f~\MINUTES\1996\071596.pC 9/}0/96 klb 12
PLANNING COMMISSION
The motion failed as follows:
AYES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller
NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Soltysiak, Webster
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN I COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
JULY 15.1996
Chairman Fahey called for a new motion to continue the item.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to continue the
item to the August 5, 1996 Planning Commission hearing and to close the public hearing.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISgIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN I COMMISSIONERS: Slaven
MANAGERS REPORT
None given.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commission Slaven stated she would like to have a 'definition" of convenience and necessity and for
the record stated she doesn't want to vote on any more applications until that is perfectly clear.
Gary Thornhill stated we will bring something back to the Commission at the next hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Soitysiak to adjourn the
meeting at 9:20 PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
The next meeting will be held August 5, 1996, at 6:00 p.m. at the Rancho California Water District
Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
R:\PLANC(]M4\MINUTES\1996\071596.PC 9/10/96 klb 13
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 19, 1996
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 19, 1996
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday,
August 19, 1996, 6:08 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135
Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Fahey presiding.
PRESENT: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
ABSENT: None
Also present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Rubin D. Weiner,
Director of Public Works/City Engineer Joseph Kicak, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
John Meyer, Associate Planner Matthew Fagan, Project Engineer Mike Boone, Associate Engineer
John Pourkazemi, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:09 P.M. There were no
requests to speak.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
Chairman Fahey stated it is necessary to continue Item 6, City Wide Design Guidelines, as
the consultant could not attend toeight's meeting.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the
agenda as amended continuing Item 6, City-Wide Design Guidelines, to the September 16,
1996 meeting.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
2. AnDroval of August 5. 1996 Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve
the minutes of August 5, 1996, with the following amendments:
Page 3, last paragraph, first line - ...understanding that the areas the fees are Daid in as
l]3j~ and not used...
Page 4, fifth paragraph, - Chairman Fahev...
R:\PLANC08~\MXNUTES\1996\081996.pC 9/3/96 klb I
P( ANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19. 1996
Page 5, third paragraph, add She stated she cannot suDDort the orQject if it has an eight
foot wall from the curb.
Page 6, paragraph I "The wall to be given...with a brick cap on top;" Planning Manager
Debbie Ubnoske will listen to the tape to determine if the motion was "finished" or "brick".
Page 6, paragraph 2 "Landscape plan as submitted...is accepted with additional landscaoe
Der staff recommendation above and beyond the wall of trees...
Page 7, 2nd paragraph, Commissioner Webster stated in the fourth WHEREAS of the
Resolution. the wording following August 5. 1996. "at a duly noticed Dublic hearing as
prescribed bv law. at which time inferested persons had an oDDortunitv to testify either in
sMDIoort or in oDposition" should be deleted
Page 7, fourth paragraph:
AYES: 3
NOES: 2
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Fahev. Slaven. Webster
Miller. Soltysiak
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
None
None
3. Planning ADDlication No. 96-0140 (Revise Tentative Parcel MaD 24085)
Senior Ranner Dave Hogan presented a proposal to revise a previously approved tentative
parcel map. This revision reduces the number of lots from 62 to 10 and one (1) remaining
18-acre lot. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan, Subdivision and
Landscaping Ordinances, and conditions of approval have been placed on the project to
assure development will occur to City Standards.
Since the Conditions of Approval were written, the following changes have been made:
Condition 9 - As the proposed project is not within the boundaries of archeological
site CA-Riv-237, this condition should essentially be reworded to match Condition
10, but changing the words paleontologist to archeologist and fossil to artifacts.
Condition 35, fourth line - should read "Western Bypass Corridor" and/Or "Medians
in accordance...
Condition 37, third line - should read ...District for any imDrovements proposed on
the Riverside Countv Flood Control District right-of-way for approval prior...
R:\PLANC~\MINUTES\1996\081996.PC 9/3/96 klb 2
PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1996
New Condition 48 o Develooer shall dP. Dosit with the Engineering Department a cash
sum as established per acre as a mitigation fee for traffic signal impacts.
Add Conditions 53, 54, 55 & 56 as requested by other agencies, regarding their
development requirements.
Staff recommends approval based on the above.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m.
Max Harrison, 41975 Winchester, Temecula, representing the applicant, Westside City 1,
came forth to give a brief presentation and to answer any questions. They would like a
review of Condition 26b regarding the sidewalk requirement for Diaz Road. The Murrieta
Creek Park Pilot Project handout, which is informational only, illustrates the proposed
equestrian trail, walkways, and bike trail along Diaz Road. Sidewalks, therefore, do not
seem necessary on both sides of Diaz Road. It is recognized the General Ran requires
sidewalks, but the applicant would like a study of the necessity for sidewalks in an
industrial park area where on-street parking is not allowed. They have 350 undeveloped
acres in this area and sidewalks will cost approximately $300,000. It is thought that money
could be spent on other improvements, such as the park which is a community effort.
There are over 30 different individuals and 12 different groups involved in this park project.
The park should happen within a year as a funding mechanism has been found; particulars
will be updated at a later date.
Commissioner Slaven clarified It is being proposed that it is not necessary to place sidewalks
on this property because of the park on the east side of Diaz Road. Mr. Harrison replied
yes. Commissioner Slaven inquired about what happens past this property. Mr. Harrison
answered they own all the property to the city limits with the exception of a parcel owned
by the City and the park concept is for the entire length of the creek to south of Clinton
Keith Road.
Chairman Fahey clarified sidewalk specifications are in the General Plan and the Planning
Commission cannot address the sidewalk issue for this particular project and she believes
Mr. Harrison was expressing a concern that this issue be addressed when reviewing
changes to the General Plan. Mr. Harrison replied that was his intent.
Commissioner Webster asked if the owner was going to prepere new CC&Rs or use existing
ones. Mr. Harrison replied the existing recorded CC&Rs will be revised to be in
conformance with the General Plan.
Commissioner Soltysiak stated on existing developed property, there is a jogging trail over
the fault setback in the green belt area. He asked if that concept was being extended
through this property. Mr. Harrison replied "no, an amendment to our Development Plan 90-
I which reflects the proposed linear park on Parcel Map 21383 will be requested at a later
date."
Commissioner Slaven questioned the meaning of Conditions 27f and 29. Regarding
Condition 27f, Mr. Hector Correa, engineer for the applicant, replied Public Works is making
certain there is a tangent long enough to allow for a smooth transition back into the
R:\PLANCC~H\MZNUTES\1996\081996.pC 9/3/96
P; ANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1996
centerline of Diaz Road. Regarding Condition 29, Mr. Harrison answered staff wants to
make certain driveways do not come onto Winchester Road and Diaz Road, which are
limited access roads. This project's access is provided by Zero Road and Remington Road.
Chairman Fahey closed Public Comments at 6:32 P.M.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to readopt the
Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map 24085; adopt PC Resolution No. 96-
approving PA96-0140 to revise Tentative Parcel Map No. 24085 from 62 lots to 10 lots and
one remainder parcel; and approve Planning Application No. PA96-0140 subject to attached
Conditions of Approval and as amended.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
4. Planning ADplication No. PA96-0132 (Conditional Use Permit - Fast Track
Commissioner Miller excused himself from this item beceuce applicant Jan Weilert is a
client.
Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report recommending approval for
construction and operation of a 20,512 square foot boat sales and repair facility on the
west side of Front Street with a reduction of one (1) required parking space. This property
will merge with the existing Jan Weilert RV Sales and Service Facility to the north and be
one parcel and the merger must be recorded as part of the building permit. Since the staff
report was prepared, letters were received from Riverside County Flood Control District and
from Churchill Buildings, a property across the street from this project. Staff recommends
the Flood Control letter be included as a condition of approval in the same manner as the
Fire Department and Water District. Concerns raised by Churchill Buildings will be brought
before the Public Traffic Safety Commission by Public Works staff. Overall, 21 percent of
the site is to be landscaped. Although the Landscape Cede calls for one (1) tree per 30 feet
of frontage, applicant will be allowed to group the trees for visibility purposes. Based on
conversation with the City Attorney, deletion of one parking Space wording should be
deleted from the Resolution as the issue can be resolved at staff level.
Commissioner Slaven inquired about the type of fencing along the back and the south sides.
Mr. Fagan stated he understood it would be wrought iron.
Commissioner Slaven questioned if there is sufficient navigation room for large motorhomes
to be serviced. Mr. Fagan replied motorhomes would not be serviced at the proposed
facility's service bays.
Commissioner Webster asked if existing eucalyptus trees were to be replaced along the
south and west sides. Mr. Fagan replied not entirely. The City's Landscape Architect
R:\PLANCO~4~\MINUTES\1996\081996.pC 9/3/96 klb 4
P! ANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19. 1996
would like a tree screen placed behind the service bays on the south side so they are not
so visible to future development.
Commissioner Webster asked if Condition 10 meant no parking in circulation driveways.
Mr. Fagan replied these are fire lanes which should not be blocked and parking would be
an enforcement issue.
Commissioner Webster inquired if an emergency evacuation plan, as required by CEQA
documents, should be included in Condition 54. Mr. Fagan responded that although
mitigation measures are not always listed in the Conditions, it is understood there must be
compliance with all mitigation measures.
Commissioner Webster asked if there is a condition that requires applicant to pay for
Western Bypass Corridor Assessment District. Planner John Pourkazemi replied this
property is outside the boundaries of that District.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked how the westerly fence line was established relative to the
creek. Mr. Fagan answered it was based on Flood Control dedication needs. The exact
location of the property line needs to be resolved with the Flood Control District prior to
issuance of permits.
Commissioner Soltysiak stated moving the property line five (5) feet may require offsetting
the building. Mr. Fagan replied it seems possible the building could be moved a bit to meet
the minimum standards of 24-foot driveways and five-foot landscape area, but the potential
exists that the buildings may have to be offset.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m.
Michael Robinson, architect, 616 E. Alvarado Street, Fallbrook, representing applicant Jan
Weilert, stated this project was established on the existing facility. There was a dedication
of 100 feet for drainage when the existing building was built and the back property line was
extended through the proposed project. Due to the Rood Control letter, there is uncertainty
as to where that line will now fall sinca there is some discrepancy between previous
information and this current letter. The building may have to be downsized to adjust for
different conditions.
Commissioner Slaven asked how many 15 gallon and 24" box sycamore trees are planned
as shown on the landscaping plan. The applicant's Landscape Architect replied the 24"
boxes were planned for the street front and two (2) 15' sycamores in the parking area.
Commissioner Soltysiak stated that if the Flood Control District's flood way location is as
stated, development cannot occur within that flood way. Engineer Bert Domingo replied
the FEMA map, which is the official delegation of flood way, was used to determine the
line. The applicant will be working with Flood Control to resolve their concerns.
Commissioner Webster inquired if the existing dumpster shown on the site plan is to be
used for both buildings. Mr. Robinson replied it was.
R:\PLANC(}f~\MINUTES\1996\081996.pC 9/3/96 klb 5
piANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1996
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the canopies shown on Exhibit H show up on the
elevations. Mr. Robinson replied they do not as the canopies were asked for after submittal
of the elevations.
Mr. Robinson stated existing wrought iron fencing will continue into this project. He is
aware staff wants the sycamore trees to screen the southwest corner and the back side of
the service bays.
Chairman Fahey closed public comments on this public hearing item at 6:50 P.M.
Commissioner Webster stated in addition to the CEQA item being added to the Conditions
of Approval, all sycamore trees must be 24" box trees.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked whether or not this site plan would come back for
Commission approval if significant changes occur as a result of Flood Control requests.
Chairman Fahey responded Staff can make minor changes and asked staff their idea of
minor vs significant. Mr. Fagan replied minor would be when there are no real changes in
the plans, but shifting occurs in order to meet the intention of the ordinance. If there is
a 15 to 20 percent reduction of building which definitely affects the site plan, the plan
would come back for Commission approval. On the parking issue, staff can consider up to
a 15 per cent reduction.
Commissioner Slaven remarked losing 15% of 63 parking spaces means nine (9), which is
the total number in the back area. Mr. Fagan stated the loss would probably be in the
corner where there are 12 spaces. She stated she does not agree to reducing parking due
to the concern about on-street parking raised by Churchill Buildings nor to giving a blanket
approval to reduce parking by 10/15 percent. Mr. Hogan stated if one or two parking
spaces are lost and a minor adjustment to building size was made, it is hoped the
Commission would find that a minor change to the overall site plan as long as the layout
and interaction of the pieces on the site are the same.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the square foot ratio for parking was being met. Mr. Fagan
replied if parking spaces are eliminated and the building is not downsized, the ratio is not
met.
Mr. Robinson stated one of the requirements is to drain everything to the street. An
alternative would be to change the slope so drainage goes to the creek and parking could
remain as shown.
Chairman Fahey reiterated various concerns: if the number of parking spaces are reduced,
the building must be downsized so the parking space ratio is met; evacuation plan as
specified in CEQA be added; sycamores be 24" box trees; Staff to clarify language in
Condition 6 to make certain sycamores tie into current landscaping; and clarify that wrought
iron fencing will be carried onto this project.
Commissioner Webster added Riverside County Flood Control District's letter needs to be
added to the Conditions.
R:\PLANCGMM\MINUTES\1996\081996.pC 9/3/96 klb 6
PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19. 1996
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adopt
the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0132; to adopt the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for Planning A9plication PA96-0132; and to adopt PC Resolution No.
96-__ approving PA96-0132 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and the amended conditions.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: I COMMISSIONERS: Miller
Planning ADDlication No. PA95-0043 (General Plan I ~nd Use MaD Amendment No. 2 and
Zoning Map Amendment No. 1: and changes to statistical tables in the General Plan Lnnd
Use Element
Senior Planner Dave Hogan stated since the adoption of the General Plan, concerns have
risen regarding inappropriate zoning designations. Additionally, changes to the General Plan
Land Use Map, updates to tables in the Land Use Element and amendments to the General
Plan Land Use Map are needed. Staff's recommendation is for the Planning Commission to
recommend to the City Council approval of the following changes.
Proposed changes are:
ProDertv No. 1. APN 911-150-039 has an existing General Ran land use designation of
Open Space/Recreation; proposed General Plan designation, Low-Medium Density
Residential. After Flood Control determined property was not needed, it was sold to a
private individual, who would like to develop · duplex or triplex on the 12,000 square foot
property.
Commissioner Miller asked about its frontage on North General Kearney and the approximate
lot sizes to the left and right as he has not noticed 12,000 s.f. lots or duplexes/triplexes in
that area. Mr. Hogan replied the property had approximately 65 feet of North General
Kearney frontage and the lots in that area are in the six (6) to seven (7) thousand square
foot range.
Commissioner Miller inquired why the property could not accommodate two separate
houses on two different lots -- with one being a flag lot. Mr. Hogan replied since the
property does not have direct access to Sierra Madre, a duplex or triplex was more
beneficial, but two houses are a possibility.
Commissioner Miller asked what would have to be adopted to allow for two houses. Mr.
Hogan replied a change in the General Plan designation and zoning to Low-Medium
Residential and if there is sufficient area, the owner would be able to build two detached
houses.
R:\PLANCC~t~\MINUTES\1996\08~996.PC 9/3/96 klb 7
P! ANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19. 1996
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the low-medium density designation requires detached
houses. Mr. Hogan enswered setback limits are required, but there is a provision for a
planned development overlay and development standards would be reviewed upon receipt
of an application. The Commission's concern that two units on that site have to be
detached units can be communicated to the owner.
Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments at 7:16 P.M. There were no requests to speak.
ProDertv 2A. 2B and 2C. APN 945-110-001. 945-110-002. AND 945-110-003.
relpectivelv. have existing General Pin Land Use Designation of Neighborhood Commercial;
proposed General Ran designation, Low Density (I.D) Residential or Office Professional. The
properties are located at the southwest corner of Pauba Road and Margarita Road. After
Staff report had been drafted, a letter, dated July 23, 1996, from Mr. Willy Lin was
received opposing a change in zoning, and a copy of the letter was given to the
Commissioners.
Chairman Fahey asked if there was a current approved development plan covering only one
lot. Mr. Hogan replied there had been and it has expired. Commissioner Slaven added the
applicant has exhausted all extensions and the plan covered only the corner lot with a
driveway shared between Lots 2C and 2B. Lots 2A and 2B virtually go downhill with
almost no flat land.
Commissioner Webster asked for the justification to change Neighborhood Commercial to
LD or Office Professional. Mr. Hogan stated the City Council was concerned that an
Neighborhood Commercial designation might not be an appropriate land use, a compatibility
issue had risen, and residents in the area had expressed concern.
Commissioner Soltysiak inquired where Neighborhood Commercial is most desirable in the
General Ran and if there was other Neighborhood Commercial zoning in the Paloma del Sol
area. Mr. Hogan replied Neighborhood Commercial is designated on properties in close
proximity to residential areas. It is differentiated from Commercial by the scale of
businesses allowed - Neighborhood Commercial is for smaller businesses. There is
Neighborhood Commercial zoning at the southeast corner of Butterfield Stage and Pauba
Road and at Margarita Road and Highway 79S.
Chairman Fahey clarified that in the last round of General Plan changes, concerns for this
Iocation's zoning were expressed by citizens. When the City Council looked at the full
General Plan, they asked staff to have the Commission look again at this particular site at
the next round of General Plan changes.
Chairman Fahey called for public comments.
Larry Markham, 41250 Winchester Road, Suite L, Temecula, representing owners Yang &
Yang, APN 945-110-002, stated this lot (the middle property) was zoned commercial in
1981 and that designation has been reconfirmed a number of times over the past years.
The property's only access is Pauba Road and Margarita Road. With the high school, sports
park, and fire station in that area, there is a high intensity of lights, acoustic issues, and
heavy traffic; none of which lends itself to a residential zoning. The Pauba Road/Margarita
Road intersection is not compatible with any type of residential use, especially large lot
R:\PLANCG~H\MINUTES\1996\081996.pC 9/3/96 klb 8
PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19. 1996
residential. This lot is also inappropriate for Office Professional zoning. Property has been
shifted from CPS (Scenic Highwa~ Commercial) to Neighborhood Commercial and is
restricted further by the Development Code which will address the neighborhood's
concerns. To now consider one acre residential or Office Professional is inappropriate.
Substantial economic impact will result if the zoning is changed. Within Paloma del Sol,
Neighborhood Commercial properties back up to residential lots and this property does not.
According to his overlay of the zoning map, the westerly parcel (2A) request for
Neighborhood Commercial zoning has never been granted.
Commissioner Slaven asked why Office Professional is inappropriate. Mr. Markham replied
Office Professional is generally for large parcels on major streets with accompanying support
services. Additionally, office vacancy rates in Office Professional are one of the highest of
any commercial or industrial use in Temecula.
Chairman Fahey asked if there is any other use that might be more amendable to these
properties; i.e., skilled nursing home. Mr. Markham answered that these parcels fall under
the new Development Code and design guidelines must be met to minimize any impact.
Lou Lightfoot, Land Use Ranher, 702 Civil Center Drive, Oceanside, representing owner of
Parcel APN 945-110-003, Ted Zonos, explained a project was approved in 1991, had three
extensions and now as the economy is strengthening, the zoning issue comes up again.
There is a major topography separation - a drainage course -- between this property and
adjoining residential properties. Noise, lights, traffic, and access issues make LD residential
inappropriate. Office Professional has to be located adjacent to other Office Professional,
with regional access such as a freeway, on a large lot, and not on an isolated property like
this. On Page 2-29 of the General Plan, Neighborhood Commercial is defined as smaller
scale business activities which generally provide retail or convenience services for
neighborhood residents. He said this property meets all the criteria for a Neighborhood
Commercial designation. Page 2-7 discusses land use compatibility and indicates it will
be a growing issue as new residents come in with a different view than the people who
developed the General Plan The buffering and site design plan have been previously
addressed on this particular property to resolve the compatibility issue.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked the location of the proposed day care center. Mr. Lightfoot
responded it was on the southeast corner of Margarita Road.
AI Ogle, specializing in leasing and land sales, 2011 Palomar Airport Road, Cadsbad, spoke
on behalf of Mr. Ted Zonos, Parcel APN 945-110-003. If this property is rezoned to LD or
Office Professional, it will be have no economic use or value. There is a 19% vacancy
factor in office properties in Temecula. For Office Professional zoning, there is no
supporting services and this is a secondary location.
Michael Tidus, 4 Park Plaza, 16th Floor, representing Ted Zonos, stated he supported the
remarks of the previous speakers.
Mel Copeland, 31286 Santiago Road, Temecula, recommended a change of zoning to Office
Professional and the properties could still be developed into a center containing grocery
store, restaurants, convenience markets, etc. The general provisions of the Development
Code state health, safety, welfare, and general prosperity are to be promoted. Allowing any
R:\PLANCC~\MZNUTES\1996\081996.9C 9/11/96 klb 9
P! ~.NNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19. 1996
of the previous mentioned businesses in this location does not support intent of the Code.
Health is not promoted when sellini alcohol, cigarettes, beer and wine and possibly drugs
in dose proximity to high schools. Safety, traffic accidents have already occurred. Children
would be crossing Margarita Road to make purchases. General prosperity, residential
property values will go down. There is nothing comparable to living in the quiet and safety
of a residential neighborhood instead of the noise, congestion, and crime of a strip mall.
He supported changing the zoning to LD residential.
Mary Costello, 31300 Cala Carrasco, Paloma del Sol, Temecula, supported the LD zoning
change.
Kathy Dean, 30909 Corte Afroyou Vista, Villa Monte Homes, Temecula, requested all three
parcels be changed to low density residential.
Alan Phillips, 43150 Corte Almonte, Paloma del Sol, Temecula expressed concern for
facilities with extensive recreational activities located in Paloma del Sol near Pauba Road
and Margarita Road.
Lynn Cude, 31438 Santiago Road, Temecula, stated she lives five (5) parcels from these
parcels. The surrounding area is primarily designated for children. She would like this to be
rezoned LD residential which is compatible with the rest of the community.
Ed Hernandez, 43153 Margadta Roa~J, Temecula, said he lives a few lots from the proposed
parcels and his main concern is a water easement road behind the properties which goes
thru other backyards. He is against retaining the Neighborhood Commercial zoning.
Mike Eyler, 31300 Cala Carraso, Paloma del Sol, Temecula, stated he lives directly across
from the area and vandalism is a major concern. He stated the property should be rezoned
residential.
Art Pezka, 43185 Margarita Road, Temecula Bid-he couldnot find any legal record of the
year these parcels were zoned commercial. He said a petition with over 120 signatures in
opposition to a commercial designation was given to the City Council in 1994/95.
Chairman Fahey noted one individual speaking against the zone change was a local resident.
ProOerty 3. APN 921-300-006. Citv of Temecula owner. currently zoned Medium Density
Residential; propose Public Parks and Recreation as the Community Services District has
designed a community park for the site.
Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments. There were none.
Prooerties 4 and 5. APN 954-020-005 and 953-150038. Rencho California Water District -
owner. are currently identified as Specific Plan even though they are outside Specific Plan
boundaries. The proposed change to Public Institutional is a clean-up action and does not
require a change in General Plan designation; only a change in zoning.
Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments. There were none.
R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\081996.pC 9/3/96 klb
P; ANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1996
Item 6 eliminate General Plan land use density ranges from the City Zoning Map. A
possibility exists that showing these ranges on the map legend may create public confusion
or misunderstanding. Zoning or development potential is not changed.
Commissioner Miller asked about the cost for removing these ranges. Mr. Hogan replied
cost will be minimal as the map must be reprinted in the near future and this removal will
not create any extra work.
Chairman Fahey called for Public Commems. There were none.
Land Use Element Tables 2-2 and 2-3 Uodates - Staff is requesting permission to update
these non-policy/non-directive summary tables automatically whenever General Plan
amendments are approved by the City Council.
Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments. There were none.
Mr. Hogan stated a correction to the last sentense of the resolution amending the Land Use
Map of the General Plan, page 7, is necessary. It should read ...THE GENERAL PLAN"
SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM IS ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A" to
allow staff to make final adjustment to the exhibits based on the direction of the
Commission.
Chairman Fahey asked for clarification as to what actions the Banning Commission is being
asked to take tonight in conjunction with amending the General Plan and how often is the
General Plan amended. Mr. Hogan replied for General Plan amendments, the Planning
Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who adopt the final resolution.
State law states the General Plan can be amended four (4) times a year. This resolution is
the first for this year, but there may be one or two later for the circulation, and open
spaca/conservation elements. For zoning map changes, the Banning Commission also makes
a recommendation to the City Council, who makes the final decision via the ordinance
process.
Commissioner Miller asked if it was clear that 2A is not part of this action. Mr. Hogan
stated he would go along with Mr. Markham that 2A is not designated Neighborhood
Commercial.
Commissioner Webster asked for clarification regarding the Commission recertifying the
final environmental impact report and readopting a negative declaration previously prepared.
Attorney Weiner stated proper procedures for the CEQA analysis was done by Staff.
Environmental analysis has already been done for the aggregate amount of development
being considered and therefore, the City would be referring to the original environmental
analysis and finding this consistent for the General Plan and zoning amendments. The
Commission is not actually recertifying; it is saying the previous EIR is applicable to this
project. Mr. Hogan stated staff did an analysis of these changes and found there was no
impact beyond that originally identified in the General Ban and any mitigation measures that
applied are still applicable. Attorney Weiner stated the Commission should make the finding
that environmental review has been done which is sufficient.
Chairman Fahey closed the public comments at 8:25 P.M.
R:\PLANCG~H\MINUTES\1996\081996.PC 9/3/96 klb 11
pIANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19. 1996
Chairman Fahey suggested discussing and resolving any issues on an item by item basis.
No. 1 - Change zoning from Open Spaca/Recreation to Low-Medium Density Residential -
consensus, Low-Medium Density Residential appropriate.
No. 3 - Change zoning from Medium Density Residential to Open Space/Recreation -
consensus, Open Spaca/Recreation appropriate.
No. 4 and 5 - Change zoning from Specific plan to Public Institutional -consensus, Public
Institutional appropriate.
No. 6 - Delete General Ran land use density ranges from the Legend of the City Zoning Map
- consensus, deletion of ranges appropriate.
No. 7 - Staff make minor changes to summary tables - consensus, minor changes
appropriate.
Chairman Fahey stated based on statements heard tonight, zoning for Parcel 2A may be
Low Density Residential, instead of Neighborhood Commercial. Lots 2A, 2B and 2C can be
dealt with separately. If 2A is zoned LD Residential, it shall remain so.
Commissioner Webster stated due to topography and location, he would like to see Parcel
2A remain low density residential and if currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, should
be changed to LD. The Staff can clarify the zone designation between the time of this
action and before it goes to City Council. All Commissioners agreed LD Residential should
remain for Parcel 2A.
Commissioner Webster said due to Lots 2B and 2C's proximity to the intersection,
topography, and uses for the other intersection lots, Neighborhood Commercial is an
appropriate zoning. There is a Development Code in place that will adequately address the
concerns raised tonight.
Commissioner Soltysiak asked if Neighborhood Commercial was more restrictive than
regular commercial and Mr. Hogan replied it was. Due to this site size, a full scale grocery
store is unlikely.
Chairman Fahey agreed to LD for 2A if that is its present zoning. Based on how
Neighborhood Commercial was designed in the General Plan, Neighborhood Commercial is
appropriate for this location.
Commissioner Miller asked, if the change to LD is approved, is there any topographic reason
why it cannot be developed as a residential property. Mr. Hogan answered a house could
be constructed on these sites.
Commissioner Miller stated he was sensitive to the feelings expressed tonight that
Neighborhood Commercial is not optimum. Zoning may have to remain as Neighborhood
Commercial with the prevailing thought that a developer will have to submit a plan of high
quality and standard before approval will be granted.
R:\PLANCGv~\MINUTES\1996\081996.PC 9/3/96 klb 12
PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1996
Commissioner Slaven agreed with Gommissioner Miller. It is not appropriate or fair to the
owners to change from Neighborhood Commercial to LD or Office Professional.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to recertify
the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Land Use Map; to adopt PC
Resolution No. 96--- recommending the City Council approve a resolution amending the
Land Usa Map of the City General Plan and some of the statistical tables in the Land Usa
Element of the General Ran; to readopt the Negative Declaration for the City Development
Code and Zoning Map for the amendments to the City Zoning Map; and adopt PC Resolution
No. 96--- recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Zoning
Map of the City of Temecula with the following amendments.
No changes to occur in the General Plan Land Usa and Zoning Map designations for
Lots 2A, 2B, and 2C
Resolution recommending amendment of the Land Use Map, last line on Page 7 to
read ...THE GENERAL PLAN" SUBSTANTIALI Y IN FORM IS ATTACHED TO THIS
RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A.
Attorney Weiner's suggested language for staff's recommendation Part 1 to read
"The Ranning Commission finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with
and result in no greater im0act on the environment than the previous General Plan
for which an environmental imoact has already been prepared and certified.
Therefore. the Planning Commission finds no additional environmental review is
~ The same Finding for No. 3 except ...add and certified. The Planning
Commission hereby finds that the grooosed zone change is consistent with and
results in no greater irr~Oact t~lDon the environment than the I~revious zoning map for
which a negative declaration has alreadv been adopted. The same language should
be put in the WHEREAS Sections of Attachments I and 2. In Attachment 2, PC
Resolution, the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs in the WHEREAS Section which
talk about adopting new environmental issues should be deleted.
Chairman Fahey closed the public hearing at 8:50 P.M.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Commissioner Soltysiak had to leave the meeting at 8:51 P.M.
6. Citv-Wide Design Guidelines
Chairman Fahey suggested Chapters I thru 4 be discussed at the September 16, 1996
meeting, and the remaining chapters discussed at the September 30, 1996 meeting.
R:\PLANCC~H\MINUT~S\1996\081996.pC 9/3/96 klb 13
pIANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19. 1996
Commissioner Webster suggested Commissioners' questions or issue clarifications be
submitted to staff prior to the meeting. Staff would compile and return responses to all
Commissioners prior to the September 16, 1996 meeting. That suggestion was agreed upon
unanimously.
Mr. Hogan asked if the Staff's presentation of the entire Guidelines could be given at the
September 16, 1996 meeting and therefore the consultant would only attend that meeting.
That suggestion was agreed upon unanimously.
Commissioner Miller asked that the Landscape Architect also be present at the September
16, 1996 meeting as he has questions about some of the flora selections.
P! ANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated she had nothing to report.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
There was no further discussion.
It was moved by Chairman Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to adjourn the meeting
at 8:50 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried.
The next meeting will be held September 16, 1996, at 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water
District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\PLANCC~\MXNUTES\1996\081996.pC 9/3/96 klb 14
ITEM #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBEL~:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoslm, Planning Manager
September 16, 1996
Director's Hearing Ca~e Update
There were no Planning Director's Hearings August, 1996.
R:XDIRHEARXl~IEMOX6-3-96.DH 9/3/96bib
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 16, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0130
Amendmant and Restatement of Developmant Agreement No. 3 for Planning Area No. 8, 9
and 12 (Find Tract Maps 22761 and 22762) within Specific Plan No. 180
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends tl~e Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA96-0130; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 96-__ recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA96-0130 to the City Council,
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached conditions of
approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Van Daele Development Corporation/WRI Associates, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Same
PROPOSAL:
A Request for Approval of an Amendment and Restatement of
Development Agreement No. 3 for Planning Areas No. 8, 9 and
12 (Final Tract Maps 22761 and 22762), within Specific Plan
No. 180.
LOCATION:
Located north of Preece Lane, west of Ynez Road, east of
Interstate 15
EXISTING ZONING:
SP (Specific Plan)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
SP (Specific Ran)
SP (Specific Plan)
PO (Professional Office) and M (Medium Density
Residential 7-12 dwelling units per acre)
SP (Specific Plan)
PROPOSED ZONING:
N/A
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Low Medium Density Residential (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Single Family Dwellings
East: Vacant
West: Interstate 15
PROJECT STATISTICS
Number of Lots:
Existing Development Agreement Fee:
Proposed Development Agreement Fee:
Eighty-three (83)
$5,334.00/Unit
$3,590.00/Unit
BACKGROUND
On October 21, 1988, Development Agreement No. 3 was executed by the County of
Riverside for the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan (S.P. 180) which included Tracts 22761
and 22762. Van Daele Development Corporation/WRI Associates, Inc. has approached the
City to execute an Amendment and Restatement of this Development Agreement to reduce
the Development Agreement fees.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Development Agreement Fee includes only an Interim Public Facilities Fee. It
eliminates other fees associated with County approved Development Agreements such as
the Regional Parkland Fee, Habitat Conservation Fee, and Public Services Offset Fee.
Interim Public Fecilitjes Fee
The Amended and Re-Stated Development Agreement ('Agreement") has a duration period
of ten (10) years and applies to Tracts 22761 and 22762. The Agreement will cover eighty-
three (83) single-family lots. The terms of the Agreement allow for an Interim Public
Facilities Fee of $3,590.00 per unit to be paid for the first five (5) years of the Agreement.
After this period, the developer will either continue to pay the Interim Public Facility Fee of
$3,590.00 or such other Public Facilities Fee adopted by the City for other residential
projects.
R:~TAJ~RPT~I30PA96.PC 9/10/96 m~ 2
ANALYSIS
The existing Development Agreement No. 3 fee includes the following fees:
Public Facilities Fee
Regional Parkland Fee
Habitat Conservation Fee
Public Services Offset Fee
$2,359.00
$436.00
$324.00
$2.215.00
Total Development Agreement Fee $5,334.00
According to the County, all County approved Development Agreements have a section
which purports to require the split of certain fees between the County and a city should any
portion of the property covering the agreement become part of a city. That section provides
that the Regional Parkland Fee and the Habitat Conservation and Open Space Land Fee
would continue to be fully payable to the County. Additionally, two-thirds (2/3) of the
Public Services Offset Fee and 5.3% of the Public Facilities Fee would be payable to the
County. Therefore, according to the County, a total of $2,346.93 is payable to the County
from the $5,334.00 Development Agreement Fee, leaving $2,987.07 as the City's portion
of this fee. The proposed $3,590.00 Interim Public Facilities Fee is greater than $2,987.07,
which is the City's portion of the existing Development Agreement Fee. should the
County's interpretation of the fees be used.
As a result of the reduction in the Development Agreement Fee, the City will receive
$297,790.00 which might otherwise have not been received due to the project being unable
to develop at the higher impact fee.
However, the City Attorney contends that the County's interpretation of the Development
Agreement is not in accordance with State law which provides that the benefits of a
Development Agreement as well as its burdens transfer to a City upon incorporation.
Because the property which is the subject of this Development Agreement is now within the
City boundaries, it is the City Attorney's opinion that the County is no longer entitled to any
fees under the Development Agreement.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
This project is consistent with the General Plan since the General Plan currently designates
the site as Low Medium Density Residential and the approved development project which is
implemented by this Development Agreement is consistent with this designation. This
project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 180, since the development project which is
implemented by this Development Agreement meets all the requirements of this Specific
Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Initial Study was prepared for this project and it revealed no significant impacts.
Therefore, Staff recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The Amended and Re-Stated Development Agreement ('Agreement") has a duration period
of ten (10) years and applies to Tracts 22761 and 22762. The Agreement will cover eighty-
three (83) single-family lots. The terms of the Agreement allow for an Interim Public
Facilities Fee of $3,590.00 per unit to be paid for the first five (5) years of the Agreement.
After this period, the developer will either continue to pay the Interim Public Facility Fee of
$3,590.00 or such other Public Facilities Fee adopted by the City for other residential
projects. As a result of the reduction in the Development Agreement Fee, the City will
receive $297,790.00 which might otherwise have not been received due to the project
being unable to develop at the higher impact fee.
FINDINGS
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 3 is consistent
with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the City of
Temecula's General Plan in that the Development Agreement makes reasonable
provision for the use of certain real property for residential development and is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Medium Density
Residential.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 3 is compatible
with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district
in which the Property subject to the Development Agreement is located as the
Development Agreement provides for single family homes. This Development
Agreement is consistent with good planning practices by providing for the
opportunity to develop the Property consistent with the General Plan.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 3 is in conformity
with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it
makes reasonable provision for a balance of housing opportunities compatible with
the remainder of the City.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 3 will not be
detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides adequate
assurances for the protection thereof.
Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in a
newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Banning
Commission public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the
hearing to the project applicant and to each agency expected to provide water,
sewer, schools, police protection, and fire protection, and to all property owners
within six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on the latest equalized
assessment roll.
Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date, time,
and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general
explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description and text or by
diagram of the location of the real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of
the need to exhaust administrative remedies.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 3 complies with
the goals and objectives of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The traffic
impacts of the development over the period of the Development Agreement will be
substantially mitigated by the mitigation measures and conditions of approval
imposed.
The Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 3 complies with
requirements of the zoning district in which the applicant proposes to develop in that
the Specific Plan zoning of Low Medium Density Residential is consistent with the
Low Medium Density Residential General Plan Land Use Designation.
The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this
legislation and this Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 3
are as follows:
City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in:
a. Generation of municipal revenue;
b. Construction of public infrastructure facilities;
Enhancement of the quality of life; including residential opportunities for
present and future residents of the City;
The opportunity for an adjacent residential-commercial project creating
significant job opportunities, sales tax and ad valorem tax revenues for the
City;
e. Payment of Public Facilities Fees (fire and traffic signal mitigation); and,
Participation in special assessment districts to finance City and regional
infrastructure improvements.
Attachments:
PC Resolution No. 96-__ - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Ordinance No. 96- - Blue Page 12
Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 17
Proposed Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 3 - Blue
Page 27
Exhibits - Blue Page 28
A. Vicinity Map
ATTAGHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:~STAFFRP~I30PA96.PC 9/10/96 mf 6
ATTACHME, NT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COlVllvH~SION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE C1TY COUNCIL
OF AMENDNfI~NT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT NO. 3 BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND VAN
DAELE DEVELOPlVrE~NT CORPORATION/WE[ ASSOCIATES, INC.
FOR FINAL TRACT MAPS NO. 22761 AND 22762, WITHIN SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 180 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0130)
THF~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
HF-REBY I~F-~OLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula has received an
application from Van Daele Development Corporation/WRI Associates, Inc. for an
Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 3, Specific Plan No. 180,
'Rancho Highlands,' Planning Application No. PA9(>0130, (hereinafter 'Development
Agreement'); and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on S~ptember 16,
1996, on the issue of recommending approval or denial of the Development Agreement.
NOW, T!:[EREFORE, TFIF~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES FIND AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt and
approve the Ordinance approving the Development Agreement, Attachments 'A' and 'B',
respectively, attached hemto and incorporated herein by this reference, subject to the
Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Attachment *C" and incorporated herein by this
reference as set forth in full herein.
Section 2. That in recommending adoption by the City Council of an Ordinance
approving the Development Agreement, the Planning Commission hereby makes the foliowing
findings:
(a) The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies,
general land uses, and programs specified in the City of Temecula's General Plan in that the
Development Agreement w~lc~s reasonable provision for the use of certain real property for
residential development and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Low-
Medium Density Residential; and,
Co) The project subject to the Development Agreement is compatible with the
uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the Specific Plan Zone district in which
the Property subject to the Development Agreement is located, and that this Development
Agreement is consistent with good planning practices by providing for the opportunity to
develop the Property consistent with the General Plan; and,
(c) The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public convenience,
general weftare, and good land use practice because it m~lces reasonable provision for a
balance of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City; and,
(d) The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof;
and,
(e) Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was
published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning
Commission public hearing, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing
to the project applicant and to each agency expected to provide waUff, sewer, schools, police
protection, and fire protection, and to all property owners within six hundred feet (600') of the
property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll; and,
(f) Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included
the date, time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general
explanation of the matter to be considered, a general description and text or diagram of the
location of the real property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust
administrative remedies; and,
(g) The Development Agreement complies with the goals and objectives of
the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the traffic impacts of the development over
the period of the Development Agreement will be substantially mitigated by the mitigation
measures and conditions of approval imposed; and,
(h) The Development Agreement complies with requirements of the zoning
district in which the applicant proposes to develop in tlmt the Low-Medium Density Residential
is consistent with the Low-Medium Residential General Plan lnnd Use Designation; and,
(i) The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from
this legislation and this Development Agreement are as follows:
City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the
1. Generation of municipal revenue;
2. Constnlc~on of public infrastructure facilities;
3. Acceleration of both the timely development of subject property as well
as the payment of municipal revenue;
4. Enhancement of quality of life for surrounding residents with the timely
development through the elimination of dust and nuisance of partially improved lots;
5. Payment of Public Facility Fees (fire, library, traffic signal mitigation,
development and RSA); and,
Section 3. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall cause this Resolution
to be transmitted to the City Council for further proceedings in accordance with State law.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th of September, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HERERY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereef, held on the 16th day of
September, 1996, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbin lYonoske, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:'~STAFFR?I~I30PA96.PC 9/10/96 m~ 10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0130 (Development Agreement)
Project Description: An Amendment end Restatement of Devdopment Agreement No.
3 for Planning Area No. 819 end 12 (Final Tract Maps 22761 and 22762), within
Specific Plan No. 180
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 Planning Application
No. PA96-0130 (Development Agreement) which action is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter
4 (Section 21000 et sea., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and
21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the
defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect,
or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers,
employees, or agents.
R:~qTAPPR.F~I30PAg6.PC 9/l(Yg~mf 11
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 96-
R:'~TA_~l~,,F~I30PA96,1sC 9/10/9~ mf 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 96- __
AN ORDINANCE OF TFff~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CAI,IFORNIA ~PPROVING AN AlV~NDMENT AND
RESTATEMI~-NT OF DEV~-LOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 3 BETW~-EN
THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND VAN DAEI.~ DEVELOPI~ENT
CORPORATION/WRI ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR FINAL TRACT MAPS
NO. 22761 AND 22762, WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 180 (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0130)
WHEREAS, Section 65864 et ~. of the Government Code of the State of California and
Temecula City Resolution No. 91-52 authorize the execution of agreements establishing and
maintaining requirements applicable to the development of real property; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with the procedure specified in said Resolution, Van Daele
Development Corpontion/WRI Associates, Inc. has filed with the City of Temecula an application
for a Development Agreement which reflects an amendment and restatement of existing County
Development Agreement No. 3 (herelnaft~ *this Agreement*), of a resideDtiM housing
subdivision on its property for Tracts 22761 and 22762 (83 lots), hereinafter the "Subject
Property" which application has been reviewed and accepted for filing by the Community
Development Director; and,
WHERFAS, notice of the City's intention to consider Moplion of this Agreement with
Costain Homes, Inc. has been duly given in the form and manner required by law, and the
Planning Commission and City Council of said City have each conducted public hearings on
September 16, 1996 (Planning Commission), and (City Council) at which
time it heard and considered all evidence relevant and material to said subject.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. FINDINGS. The City Council hereby finds and determines, with respect
to this Agreement by and between the City of Tcmecula and Van Danle Devclopmcnt
Cotporation/WRI Associates, Inc. that it:
A. Is consistent with the objective. s, policies, general land uses, and programs specified
in the City of Temecula's Genenl Plan in that this Agreement makes reasonable provision for the
use of certain real property for residential development con-~i.~tent with the Genenl Plan's land use
designation of Low-Medium Density Residential;
B. Is compatible with the uses aathorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the
land use district in which the Subject Property referred to herein is located as this Agreement
provides for residential development pursuant to a Specific Plan;
R:'xSTAI~RFr~I30PA96.1'C 9110~9~ mf 13
C. Is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use
practice because it ranIces reasonable provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the
remainder of the City;
D. V(ffi not be deUimeaml to the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides
adequate assurances for the protection thereof;
E. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission was published in a
newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the Planning Commission public
hearing, and mailed or delivered at hstst ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant
and to each agency expected to provide water, sewer, schools, police protection, and fire
protection, and to nil property owners within six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on
the latest eq, mli T~:l assessment roll;
F. Notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission included the date,
time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, a general explanation of
the matter to be considered, a general description in text or diagram of the location of the real
property that is the subject of the hearing, and of the need to exhaust administrative remedies;
G. Notice of the public hearing before the City Council was published in a newspaper
of general circnlnten at least ten (10) days prior to the City Council public hearing, mailed at least
ten (10) days prior to the hearing to the project applicant, to each agency expected to provide
water, sewer, schools, police protection, and fLre protection, and to all property owners within
six hundred feet (600') of the property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll;
H. Notice of the City Council hearing included the date, the time, and place of the
public hearing, the identity of the hearing body, the general explanation of the matter to be
considered, a general description in text or by diagram of the location of the Property that is the
subject of the hearing, and the notice of the need to exhaust administrative remedies;
I. City Council approved this Agreement by Ordinance based upon evidence and
findings of the Planning Commission and new evidence presented at its hearing on this
Agreement, giving its reasons therefor and setting their relationship between this Agreement and
the General Plan;
K. The benefits that will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from this
legislation and this Agreement are as follows:
1. Generation of municipal revenue;
2. Construction of public infrastructure facilities;
3. Acceleration of both the timely development of subject property as well as
the payment of municipal revenue;
R:~STAFFRP~I~0PAg~.pC ~10/96 mf ~ 4
4. Enhancement of quality of life for surrounding residents with the timely
development through the elimination of dust and nuisance of partially improv~xl lots; and
5. Payment of Public Facility Fee~ (fire, library, traffic signal mitigation,
development and RSA).
Section 2. APPROVAl .. This Agreement, attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference as Attachment *1 * is hereby approved. The Mayor is authorized and directed to
evidence such approval by executing this Agreement for, and in the name of, the City of
Temecula; and the City Clerk is directed to n_~e-st thereto; provided, however, that this Agreement
shall not be executed by the City until this Ordinance takes effect and the City has received from
the applicant two executed originals of said Agreement.
Section 3. SEV~.RAFffI.ITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of
this Ordinance are severable and ff for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, pangraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining pans of this Ordinance.
Section 4. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
Section S. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty 00) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
publish a summary of this Ordinanc~ and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall
be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this
Ordinance, together with the names of the Coancilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance,
and pest the same in the office of the City Clerk.
R:XSTAFFRF~I30pA96.PC 9/10/96 mf 15
Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1996.
Karel Lindemans, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance No. __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting
of the City Council on the . day of , 199_, and that thereafter, said Ordinance
was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of
199_, by the following vote, to wit:
CO~CILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILNmMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:I,~'TAFFRP~I30PA~.PC 9/10/96mf '[ 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:X$TAFFRPTXI30pA96.PC 9/10/96mf 17
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
1. Project Title:
3.
4.
5.
Lead Agency Nam~ and Address:
Contact Person and Phon~ Numbor:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose approval
planning Application No. PA96-0130 (Amendment and
Restatement of Dcvalopmcnt Agreement) - Interim Public
Facility Fee
City of Temecula, 43174 Business Park Drive, Tcmceula,
CA 92590
Matthew Fagan, Associate planner (909) 694-6400
Noah of P_v~c__e Lane and west of Ynez Road (TM 22761
and TM 22762)
Van E)acle Development Corpomion/WR/Associates, L.P.
2900 Adams Street, Suite C-25
Riverside, CA 92504
LM (Low-Medimn Density Residential - 3-6 dwelling units
per acre)
SP (Raneho Highlands Specific Plan)
Amendment and Restatement of Devciopmmt Agreement
for Specific Plan 180 (Raneho Highlands Specific Plan) -
PianningAreasNo. 8/9 &12
S'mgle family residences to the south. Vacant to the north,
and east. Interstate 15 to the west
]qOIIC
R:~TAFFRFIM10pA96.1~C 9/10/~ mf 13
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmentnl factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potmially Sj~ificant Impact" as indic~u~l by the checldist on the following pages.
] Land Use and Plnnning [ ] I-Javnrds
] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
] Water [ ] Utilities and Servic~ Systems
] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics
] Transpomaion/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ Biological Resources [ ] Rtcre~on
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Maadato~yFindingsofSL~niflcance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fred that the proposed project COULD NOT have a si~eniflcant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will I~ prcpar~
Signlure
Printed Name
Dat~
IS~UE~ AN]:} SUFFORTING INFORMATION
NO
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Couilict with general plan designation or zoning7
b. Conflict with applicable enviroomeutal plans or policies
adopted by agem:ies with jurisdiction ove~ the project?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in rig vicinity?
d. Affect agricultural resources or operafleas (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlauds, or impacts from inoc~patible laud uses7
e. Disropt or divide lhe physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-inc~ue or mino~ty r.~nmunity)?
2. POPUI.~TION AND HOUSING, Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed otticial regional or local population
projects?
b. Indoce substautial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an uudeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)7
c. Displaocexishnghousing, especially affordable housing?
3, GEOLOGIC PROBLEM& Would the propomal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a. Fault rupture?
b. Seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d. Seiche, tsuuami, or volca~c hazard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
Erosion, changes in topography or uustable 8o'11 ~xmdilions
fi~u excavation, gading or fill?
g. Subsidence of the land?
h. Expansive so'Us?
I. Unique geologic or physical features?
[1
[3
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[3
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
R:~TAFFRF~I10pA96.1~ 9/10/~ mf
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFOP, NLA. TION ~3URCES
No
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
& ChlOlg~ in absorpfio5 reIcs, drainr~e p~cl'ns, of thc
rate snd mount of surface nmoff?
b. Exposureofpcoplcofpropatytowaterrelatedhazards
such as flooding?
c. DischarF into surface watas of othof siteration d surface
water quality (e.s. temperature, dissolved oxBen of
turbidity)?
d. ChanSesintheamountofsurfaccwatefins~waXer
e. Changes m currents, ofthccoofseofdirectionafwatef
movements?
£ ChanSc in the quantity of gcund waters, cithcr through
direct -~iti~m of withdrawals, or throuSh interception
of an aquifcr by cuts of excav~om of through subsantial
loss of ~rcundwater recharSe capability?
~. Altereddirectionofrateoffiowofgroundwatef?
h. Impacts to poundwater quality?
I. Substantial rcducti~m in the amount of poundwata
otherwise avsilablc for public wate~ supplies?
5, AIR QUALr['Y, World the proposal:
a. ViolaXe any air quality standard of contribute to an
existins of projected air quality ~iolatia~?
b. Expose smsitive receptors to polluXants?
any chanSc in climax?
d. Create objectionable odors?
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal ruult in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic conScstlon?
b. Hszardstosdctyfromdes~nfcatures(c.2. sharp curves
of danScrous intersection of incompatible uses)?
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[)
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[l
[]
R:~AFFRFI'Q)GPA~.P(~ ~lO~3~ml' 21
ISSUES AND SUPFORTINO INFORMATION SOURCES
Po~fiany
No
c, hadequatcemffgency~sorEcesstonearbyuses?
d. Insufilcientparkingcapacityo~-siteoroff-site?
c. Hazards or binTiers for pcdest~.n~ or bicyclists?
£ Cozdlicts wi~ adopts1 policies support~ ait~n~ative
tr~sportatio~ (c.g, bus ramouts, bicycle rach)?
g. l~il, watcrbome or air tra~Sc impacts?
7, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Would the proposal
rosull in impam to:
a. Endangered, thre-Jz'n~ or rare species or their habitats
(incitetinS but not limited to plants, fish, insects, imlm,!,
and birds)?
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c. Locally ciesignatcd natural communities (e.g. oak fc~t,
coastal habitst, etc.)?
d. Wetland ha~itst (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)?
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration coredors?
g, ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted cnfflD' c,~tserv~on plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a waste~ and ine~cieut
manner?
c. Result in thc loss of availab'~ity of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
9, HAZARDS, Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosioo or release ofh~-nious
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, l~aicicles,
chemical or radiation)?
b. Poesible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. Thecreationofanyhealthhazardorpotentialhealth
hazard?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
R:~ST~J~J~F%I~OPA~.!~ ~/lO~mr 22
ISSUES AND SUffORTINO INFORMATION SOURCF~
NO
c. Incrca~ fire h,,Tard in areas with ~arnmnblc brush,
~rass, or trccs?
10. NOISF~ Would the proposal result
L Increase jn existing noise levcls?
b. F. xposurc of people to severe no~sc lcvcls?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or resu!~ ia a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. I~]ginte~lance of public facILities, includin~ roads?
c. Other 8ovcrnmcntal sca'v~ccs?
UTILrrlF, S AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, W~uld the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the followin2 utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Comm~nicatic~xs systems?
c. Local or rcl~onal water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d. Scwcr or sc~fic
c. Storm watc~ drainage?
f. Sol~d w~c d~slx~al?
g. Local or rc~onal wa~ supplies?
A~STIIETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affcctasccnjcvisiao~scen~cl~hway?
1Z
13.
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[l
[l
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION 8OUNCE8
No
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic e~ect?
[]
[]
[]
c. Creat~ light of glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb pal~ontological r~so~?
b. Disturb archaeological r~,~,otu'ccs?
c. tM~cct historical resource?
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect uniqu~ ethnic cultursJ values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
hnpact area?
IS. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the deinand f~x neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNtFiCANCL
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, subs~ntially r~dt~e ~e habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, caus~ a fish or wildlife populatkm
tO drop below ~,J~-~U$t-'l;nln~ levels, threaten W eliminat~
a plant or nnlmsl CO~llllU~ity, redlice th~ nmnbcr of restrict
the range of a rare or eaKlangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of Califonfia history
or prehist~y?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve shoa-term, tothe
disadvantage of long-tmn, environmental goals?
Does the project have impacts that ares individually
llmit~d, but cumulativellt ~nsides'sble? ("Cumulatively
considerable"memsthstlbeincrmnentaleffectsofm
proj~t at= considerable wh~m viewai in conncaion ~ith
the ea~ts of past proj=cts, the ea~ts of other cuffeat
projects, and the eaects of probable future projects).
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial advers~ effects on human beings, either
dir~y or indirectly?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[l
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
17. EABLn~.l~ANALySES.
a. Earlier analyses us~t: Enviranmental Impa~t Rep~t No. 202, impaots wa'e sJeq,,.t,~ly ~lbessed.
SOURCES
City ofTemecuh Genenl Plan,
City of Temecula General Plan Final ~nvironmental I, mps~t Rep~.
~WrA~'n~S~A~.~C wlo~=f 25
DISCUSSION OF ~ ENVIRONMENTAL IM1/ACTS
The project is an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement No. 3 for Planning
Areas No. 8/9 and 12 (Final Tract Maps 22761 and 22762), within Specifc Plan No. 180. The
main amendment to the Development Agreement is the shiffing of the payment of public Facility
Fees from the County of Riverside to the City of Temecula. The Amendment and Restatement of
Development A~reement No. 3 will not create any impacts upon the environment. The overall
project (Specific Plan No. 180 - lhncho Highlands) was analyzed in Environmental Impact
Keport No. 177. Any mitigation measures recommended in Eli( No. 177 will remain applicable
to the project. Further, mitigation measures are contained in the conditions of approval for
TM22761 and TM22762.
R:~STAFFRFrH~OPA96.1~C 9110~6 mf 26
ATTACHMENT N0.4
PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 3
R:~TA~PT~I~OPA~.PC 9/lO/~mr 27
RECORDED AT TFIE~ REQUEST OF
WidEN RECORDED RETURN TO
City Clerk
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
(Space Above Line For Kecorder's Use)
AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 180
PIANNING AREA 8/9 & 12
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 96-0130
"RANCHO HIGmANDS'
VAN DAELEfWRI ASSOCIATES, L.P.
AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA
and
VAN DAIELE/WRI ASSOCIATES, LP.
This Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement (''Agreement") is entered into
by and among the City ofTemecula, a California Municipal Corporation C'City") and Van Daele/WRI
Associates, L.P. a California Limited Pannership (''Owner"):
BRCTrAT .g
A. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864, seq. (''Development
Agreement Statutes"), Kaiser Development Company a California Corporation and others and the
County of Riverside, California C'County") entered into Development Agreement No. 3 recorded in
the Official Records of Riverside County, California on October 21, 1988, as Instrument No. 306874
(''Development Agreement No. 3").
B. Development Agreement No. 3 encompasses a pmjeet formerly located within County
approved Specific Plan No. 180 known as "Rancho Highlands", a mixed use subdivision, (the
"Original Project"), to be developed on property which came within the municipal boundaries of the
City when the City incorporated on December 1, 1989. This Agreement encompasses only a portion
of the Original Project, a residential development located in a portion of planning Area 8/9 & 12 (the
"Project"). The balance of the Original Project covered by Development A~reement No. 3 not
included within Planning Area 8/9 & 12 is not amended or impacted by this A~reement.
C. Pursuant to the provisions of the Development Agreement Statutes, the City became
the successor-in-interest to the County under Development Agreement No. 3 upon incorporation of
the City. Pursuant to Owner obtaining title to the Project as recorded in the Official Records of
Riverside County, California on April 19, 1996 as Instrument No. 141437, and pursuant to the
provisions of Development Agreement No. 3, Owner became successor-in-interest to the "Owner"
described in Development Agreement No. 3.
D. Pursuant to Section 65868 of the Development Agreement Statutes, the City and
Owner propose to restate and amend Development Agreament No. 3 to substitute this Agreement
for Development Agreement No. 3, but only to the extent Development Agreement No. 3 pertains
to the Project.
E. Pursuant and subject to the Development Agreement Statute_s, the City' s police
powers and City Resolution No. 91-52, City is authorized to enter into binding agreements with
persons having legal or equitable interest in real property located within the City's municipal
boundaries or sphere ofintluence thereby establishing the conditions under which such property may
be developed in the City.
F. By entering into this Agreement, City shall bind ~aure Members of the City Council
of City by the obligations specified herein and further limit the future exercise of certain governmental
R:\PLANNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf i
and proprietary powers of Memben of the City Council. Likewise, Owner shall bind its successors
in interest to the obligations specified in the Agreement.
G. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by the
sta~of the City, the Planning Cornmission of the City, and the City Council of City and have been
found to be fair, just, and reasonable.
H. City~ndsnndd~_,u~tnesthatitwillbeinthebestinterestofitscitizensandthepublic
health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement.
I. All of the procedures and requirements of the California Environmental Quality A~t
relevant to this Agreement have been met.
J. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City, establishes public
facilities impact fees for residential development within City C'RSA Fees"). City requires these
revenues to mitigate the impact of development. City requires RSA Fees from development of the
Property in order to complete capital projects to mitigate the impact of the Project.
K. Development Agreement No. 3 provided for public facilities and services impact fees
(''County Development Agreement Fees'3 higher than the RSA Fees. These higher fees, particularly
during the present economic situation, unduly discourage and delay development and thereby prevent
City from ever receiving the County Development Agreement Fees or RSA Fees. Consequently, the
City is willing to reduce the County Development Agreement Fees for residential development in the
Project to a level comparable to the RSA Fees.
L. City and Owner acknowledge that development of the Project will result in the
generation of municipal revenue, for public infrastructure facilities and the enhancement of the quality
ofli~e, including recreation facilities for present and future residents of the City. The benefits to the
City and Owner contemplated by development of the Project include:
(x)
(2)
(3)
(4)
completion of vacant lots in Project;
payment of signal mitigation fees;
payment of library fees;
payment of park fees
M. The City and Owner acknowledge that due to the present economic situation, none
of these benefits to the City are possible unless the Project proceeds with development.
N. City Council of City has approved this Agreement by Ordinan, ce No.
adopted on , and effective on C'Effective Date'). On the Effeaive Date,
Development Agreement No. 3 shall be t~au~nated and of no further force and effect as to the Project
only, having been replaced by this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the above Recitals and of the mutual covenants
hereinafier contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged and incorporated herein, the parties agree:
R:\PLANNING\130pA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 2
1. l)efini~om. In this Agreemeag, unless the contex~ otherwise requires, the following
words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth below:
1.1 "City" is the City of Temecula.
1.2 "City Public Facility Fee" is an amount to be established by Ordinance of City.
1.3 "County" is the County of Riverside.
1.4 "County Developmere Agrmneat Fee" means the County public facilities and
services mitigation fee set forth in Seotion 4.2 of Development Agreement No. 3.
1.5 "Development Exaction" means any requirement of City in counection with
or pursuant to any Land Use Regulation or Existing Development Approval for the dedication of
land, the construction of improvements or public facilities, or the payment of fees in order to lessen,
offset, mitigate or compensate for the impacts of development on the environment or other public
interests.
1.6 "Development Plan" means the Existing Development Approvals.
1.7 "Effective Date" means the date upon which the Ordinance approving this
Agreement becomes effective. Absent a referendum challenge, such date is thirty (30) days following
the date the City Council adopted such Ordinance.
1.8 "Existing Development Approval(s)" means those certain development
approvals relating to the Property in effect as of the effective date of this Agreement, including,
without limitation, the "Existing Development Approvals" listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, which were approved by the County.
1.9 '~.xisting Land Use Regulations" means those Land Use Regulations listed on
Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are a matter of public
record on the Effective Date of this Agreement.
1.10 "Financing District" means a Community Facilities District formed pursuant
to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (California Government Code Section 53311
et seq., as amended); an assessment district formed pursuant to Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972 (California Street and Highways Code Section 22500 ~ as amended); a special assessment
district formed pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (California Streets and Highway Code
Section 10102, as amended); or any other special assessment district existing Dursuant to Sate law
formed for the purpose of financing the cost of public improvements, facilities, sentices and/or public
facilities fees within a specific geographical area of the City.
1.11 "Hazardous Substance" shah include, without limitation, any fiammable
explosives, radioactive materials, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyis, chemicals known to cause
cancer or reproductive toxicity, substances described in Civil Code Section 2929.5 (e) (2), as it now
exists or as subsequently amended, pollutants, contaminants, bnT~rdous wastes, toxic substances or
R:\PLANNING\130pA96.DA 9/11/95
related materials. Notwithstanding the foregoing~ "Ha-~rdous Substances" shall not include
substances customarily used in developing, operating or maintaining developments similar to the
Project, provided all such substances are used, stored, and disposed of in accordance with all
applicable laws.
1.12 "Inte~PublicFacililiesFee" means the fees set forth in Section 12.2 ofthis
Agreement.
1.13 "Land Use Regulations" means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules,
regulations, aria official policies of City, governing the development and use of land including without
limitation: the permitted use of land; the density or intensity of use; subdivision requirements; the
maximum height area 6~ of proposed buildings; the provisions for reservation or dedication of land
for public purposes; and the design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications
applicable to the development of the Property. "Land Use Regulations" does not include any County
or City ordinance, resolution, code, role, regulation, or official policy, governing:
(a) The conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations;
Co) Taxes and assessments;
(c) The control and abatement of nuisances;
(d) The granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and
interest which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property;
(e) The exercise of the p~ver of eminent domain.
1.14 "Owner" means Van Daele/WRI Associates, L.P., a California Limited
Partnership, and any successor in interest to Van Daele/WRI, L.P.
1.15 "Project" is the development of the Property in accordance with the
Development Plan.
1.16 "Property" is the real property described in Exhibit C, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
1.17 "RSA Fee" means the fee estsblished by County Ordinance No. 659, adopted
by City by Ordinance No. 90.04.
1.18 "Subsequent Development Approvals" means all development approvals
required subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with development of the Property.
1.19 "Subsequent Land Use Reg-htlon' means any Land Use Regulation applicable
to the Property adopted and effective after the Effective Date of this Agreement.
R:\PLANNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 4
2. Interest of Owner. Owner represents that it has the fee title interest in the Property
and that all other persons holding legal or equitable interest in the Property are to be bound by this
Agreement.
3. Exhibit. The following documents referred to in this Agreement are attached hereto,
incorporated herein, and made a part hereof by this reference:
Exhibit Designation
A.
B.
C.
D.
Description
Existing Development Approvals
Existing Land Use Regulations
Legal Description of the Property
Notice From Mortgagee
4. Tenn.
4.1 The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall
extend for a period often (10) years thereafter, unless this Agreement is terminated, modified or
extended by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual consent of the parties hereto.
4.2 This Agreement shall terminate and be of no force and effect upon the
occurrence of the entry of a final judgment or issuance of the final order after exhaustion of any
appeals, directed against the City as a result of any lawsuit filed against directing the City to set aside,
withdraw, or abrogate the approval by the City Council of City of this Agreement.
5. A~sii~nent.
5.1 Right to Assig~x. The Owner shall have tbe right to sell, transfer, or assign the
Property in whole or in pan (provided that no such partial transfer shall violate the Subdivision Map
Act, Government Code Section 66410, ~L.~i., or Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, as the same
was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal Code by Ordinance No. 90-04,) to any
person, pannership, joint venture, firm, or corporation at any time during the term of this Agreement;
provided, however, that any such sale, transfer, or assignment shall include the assignment and
assumption of the rights, duties, and obligations arising under or from this Agreement and be made
in strict compliance with the following conditions precedent:
(a) No sale, transfer, or assignment of any right or interest under this Agreement
shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer, or assignment of all or a part of the
Property. Owner agrees to provide specific notice of this Agreement, including the record or
document number, where a true and correct copy of this Agreement may be obtained from the
Riverside County Recorder, in any grant deed or other document purporting to transfer the title or
an interest in the Property during the term of this Agreement or any extension thereof.
(b) Coneurrem with any such sale, tran/er, or assignment~ or within fi~een (15)
business days therealter, the Owner shall notify City, in writing, of such sale, transfer, or assignment
and shall provide City with an executed agreemere, in a form reasonably acceptable to the City
Attorney, by the purchaser, transferee, or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser,
R:\PLANNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 5
trsnsferee, or assignee unconditiona~y assumes all the duties and obligations of the Owner under this
ASreement.
Any sale, transfer, or usi~'nent not made in strict compliance with the fore~oin~
conditions shall constituted a detroit by the Owner under this A~reem~nt. Notwithstanding the
failure of any purchaser, transferee, or assignee to execute the agreement required by Paragraph Co )
of this Subsection, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon such purchaser, transferee,
or assignee, but the benedits or this Agreement shall not inure to such purchaser, transferee, or
assignee until and unless such agreement is executed.
5.2 Releane of Transferring Owner. Notwithstanding any sale, transfer, or
assignment, a trusferring Owner shall continue to be obligated under this Agreement unless such
transferring Owner is given a release in writing by City, which release shall be provided by City upon
the full satisfaction by such trusferring Owner of ALL of the following conditions:
(a) The Transferring Owner no longer has a legal interest in all or any pan ofthe
Property except as a beneficiary under a deed of trust.
Co) The Owner is not then in default under this Agreement.
(c) The Owner or purchaser has provided City with the notice and executed
agreement required under Paragraph Co) of Subsection 5.1 above.
(d) The purchaser, transferee, or assignee has provided City with security
equivalent to any security previously provided by the Transferring Owner to secure performance of
its obligations hereunder.
(e) The Tran/erring Owner has reimbursed City for any and all City costs
associated with Owner' s transfer of all or a portion of the Property.
5.3 T ennlmm'on of Agreement with Respect to' Individual Lots upon Sale to Public
and Completion of Construction. Notwithstanding Subsetdon 5.1, or any other provisions ofthis
Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate with respect to any lot and such lot shall be released and
no longer be subject to this Agreeanent without the execution or recordation of any further document
upon satisfaction of both of the following conditions:
(a) The lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulk") sold
or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate user; and
Co ) A Cffti~cate of Occupancy has been issued for a building _on a lot, and the fees
set forth in this Agreement have been paid.
5.4 Subsequent Ansignment. Any subsequent sale, transfer, or assignment after
an initial sale, transfer, or assignment shah be made only in accordance with and subject to the terms
and conditions of this Section.
R:\PLANNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 6
6. MorXgagee Protection. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not prevent
or limit Owner, in any manner, at Owner' s sole discretion, fi'om encumbering the Property or any
portion thffeof or any improvenumt thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust, or other security device
securing financing with respect to the Properly. City acknowledges that the lenders providing such
financing may require certain Agreement interpretations and modifications and agrees upon request,
from time to lime, to meet with the Owner and representatives of such lenders to negotiate in good
faith any such requested interpretation or modification. City will not unreasonably withhold its
consent to any such requested interpretation or modification provided such interpretation or
modification is consistent with the intern a~xl purposes of this Agreement. Owner shall reimburse City
for any and all of City's reasonable costs associated with the negotiations, interpretations, and
modifications within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice from City.
Any Mongagee of the Property shall be enti~ed to the following fights and privileges:
(a) Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall
defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any mortgage on the Property made in good faith
and for value, unless otherwise required by law.
Co ) The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property,
or any part thereof, which Mortgagee has submitted a request in writing, in the form as attached
hereto as Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, to the City in the
manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be enti~ed to receive written notification ~'om City
of any default by the Owner in the performance of the Owner' s obligations under this Agreement.
(c) If City timely receive~ a request from a Mortgagee, in the form set forth on
Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated berein by this reference, requesting a copy of any notice
of default given to the Owner under the terms of this Agreement, City shah endeavor to provide a
copy of that notice of default to the Mongagea within ten 10 days of sending the notice of default
to the Owner. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default during
the remaining cure period allowed such party under this Agreement. City shall have no liability for
damages or otherwise to Owner, Owner's successor, or to any Mortgagee or successor thereof for
the failure to provide such notice.
(d) Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part
thereof; pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure,
shall take the Properly, or part thereel; subject to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, no Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty
under this Agreement to perform any of the Owner' s obligations or other affirmative covenants of
the Owner hereunder, or to guarantee such performance, provided however, th~_t to the extent that
any covenant to be performed by Owner is a condition precedent to the performance of a covenant
by City, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to City' s performance
hereunder, and further provided that any sale, transfer or assignment by any Mortgagee in possession
shall be subjea to the provisions of Section 5.1 of this Agreement. The term of the Agreement shall
not be extended based on the fact that a Mortgagee holds title to the Property for all or any part of
the term of this Agreement.
R:\PLANNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 7
(e) Any Mortgagee who comas into possession of the Property, or any portion
thffeof; pursuant to subsection (d) above sad who elects not to assume the ob~gations of the Owner
set forth herein shall not be entitled to any rights to develop which have or may have vested as a
result of this Agreement.
7. Binding Effect of AFeement. The burdens of this Agreement bind and the benefits
of the Agreement inure to the successors-in-interest W the parties to it in accordance with the
provisions of and subject to the limitations of this Agreement.
8. PrOject a~ a Private Undertaking/Relationship of Parties. It is specifically understood
and agreed by and between the parties hercto that the development of the Project is a private
development, that neither party is an indetaendent contracting entity with respect to the terms,
covenants, and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture, or other
association of any kind is formed by this A~reement. The only rehtionship between City and Owner
is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such
property.
9. Changes in PrOject. No change, modification, revision, or alteration of Existing
Development Approvals may be made without the prior approval of the City. City may expand the
permitted uses for the Property without mending this Agreement so long as Owner or Owner's
successor retains his/her/their existing entitlemerits.
10. Timing of Development. The parties acknowledge that Owner cannot at this time
predict when, or the rate at which the Property will be developed. Such decisions depend upon
numerous factors which are not within the control of Owner, such as market orientation and demand,
interest rates, absorption, completion and other similar factors. Since the California Supreme Court
held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 {1984), that the failure of the
parties therein to pwvide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative
restricting the timing of development to prevail over such parties, it is the parties intent w cure the
deficiency by acknowledging and providing that the Owner shall have the fight w develop the
property in such order, at such rate, and at such times as the Owner deems appropriate within the
exercise of its subjective business judgment, subjea only to any timing or phasing requirements set
forth in the Development Plan.
11. Indemnity and Cost of Litigation.
11.1 HoldI-larml~. Ownera~rees Wand shall hold City, its officers, employees,
agents, and representatives harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal
injury including death and claims for property damage which may arise from tb.e direct or indirect
operations of the Owner or those of its contractor, subcontractor, employee, agents, or other persun
acting on its behalf which relate to the Project, regardless of wh=ther or not City prepared, supplied,
or approved plans or specifications for the Projea. This indemnification requirement shall survive
the termination or expiration of this Agreement.
11.2 Co, nty Litigation Concerning Agreement. In the event the County seeks to
challenge the right of City _and Owner to enter into this Agreement or to terminate Development
R:\PL~J~NING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mr 8
Agreement No. 3, and institutes an action, suit, or proceeding to challenge this Agreement or
invalidate and/or enjoin the enforcement of this Agreement or the termination of Development
Agreement No. 3, City and Ownff agree to cooperate and participate in a joint defense in any action
against the parties, their officers, employees, and agents, from and against any and all such
obligations, !iab'dity, suit, claim, loss, judgment, or lien resulting from such action (s) brought by
County, (but excluding actions to expunge any lis pendens) and to share the costs assoc'mted with
attorneys fees and costs that the parties may incur as the result of any such action or lawsuit to
challenge City and/or Owner's legal authority to enter into this Agreement and/or terminate
Developmeat Agreement No. 3. If the County action is against all impacted developments for winch
the City has lowered the otherwise applicable County fees, then Owner' s defense costs herein shall
be ks pro rata share among all impacted hindowners based on a ratio of contribution of the total units
owned by Owner which are subject to this Agreement compared to the total number of units within
the City in winch City has lowered the County fees and winch are included in such legal challenge,
If the County action is only against Owner with respect to this Agreement, then Owner's defense
costs shall be one-hundred percent ( 1 04)%) of the attorneys fees and costs for defense of the litigation.
City and Owner shall mutually agree on legal counsel to be retained to defend any such action(s)
brought by the County as herein provided. City and Owner each reserve the fight to withdraw from
the defense of the County litigation in the event the County prevails at the trial level and there is an
appeal. If either party withdraws after the trial and there is an appeal, the remaining party shall pay
all the costs and fees associated with the appeal.
11.3 Coun~ L'~ga~ion Concerning Agreement - Damages. In the event the County
prevails in any legal action or other proceeding to challenge, set aside, or enjo'm the enforcement of
tins Agreement and the amendment of Development Agreement No. 3, damages (including the
difference in the amount of any Interim Public: Fac'dities Fee paid by Owner to City pursuant to the
terms of this Agreement and the amount of the County Development Agreement Fee) shall be the
responsibility of Owner. To the extent Owner has paid Interim Public Facilities Fees to City winch
are adjudicated to lawfully belong to the County, City shall pay such sums to County and Owner shall
be liable for the payment of the difference between the County Development Agreement Fee reduced
by the amount paid by the City.
11.4 County Prevails in Litigation - Severability. In the event the County prevails
at the tria/court level against the City or the Owner as described in Section 11.2 of tins Agreement,
the amount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee or the City Public Fac'dities Fee, as the case may be,
shall revert to the amount of the County Development Agreement Fee in effect at the time of entry
of the final judgment in favor of the County, or such lesser mount as determined by the court. In
the event this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable by a trial court of competent
jurisdiction, the provisions set forth in Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of this Agreement shall no longer be
enforceable and from the date of the final judgment or ruling olinvalidity, Owner_ shall thereafter pay
the County Development Agreement Fee as provided in Section 4.2 of Development Agreement No.
3, or such lesser amount as determined by the court. All other provisions of tins Agreement shall
remain valid and enforceable notwithstanding the ruling of invalidity.
11.5 Third PazW Ua~gation Concerning Agreement. Owner shall indemnify, protect,
defend, at ks expense- including attorney's fees; and hold harmless City, its officers, employees, or
agents against any loss, cost expense, claim, or counter-claim, complaint, or proceeding to attack,
R:\PLANNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 9
set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or the approval of any permit granted
pursuant to this Agreeme~ brought by a third party other than the County. City shall promptly notify
Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding and City shall cooperate in the defense. If City fails
to promptly notify Owner of any such claim, action, or proceeding or if City fails to cooperate in the
defense, Owner shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless City. City
may in its discretion participate in the defense of any such claim, action, or proceeding.
11.6 Environmentnl Aqsursnces. Owner shall indemnify, protect, defend with
counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City, its officers, employees, agents, assigns, and any
successor or successors to City's interest from and against all claims, actual damages (including but
not limited to special and consequential damages), natural resources damages, punitive damages,
injuries, costs, response, remediation, and removal costs, losses, demands, debts, Hens, liabilities,
causes of action, suits, legal or administrative proceedings, interests, fines, charges, penalties and
expenses (including but not limited to attorneys' and expert witness fees and costs incurred in
connection with defending against any of the foregoing or in enforcing this indemnity) of any kind
whatsoever paid, incurred, or suffered by, or asserted against, City or its officers, employees, or
agents arising from or attributable to any repair, cleanup, or dctoxi~cation, or preparation and
implementation of any removal, remedial, response, closure, or other plan ( regardless of whether
undertaken due to governmental action ) concerning a Hazardous Substance or baT~rdous wastes at
any place within the property which is the subject of this Agreement. The foregoing indemnity
extends beyond the term of this Agreement and is intended to operate as an agreement pursuant to
Section 107(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,
C'CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 9667(e), and California Health and Safety Code Section 25364, and
their successor statutes, to insure, protect, h®ld harmless, and indemnify City from liability.
11.7 Release. Except for nondamage remedies, Ownar, for itseH~its succossors and
assignees, hereby relesses the City, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims,
demands, actions, or suits of any kind or nature arising out of any liability, known or unknown,
present or future, including, but not limited to, any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to
Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage,
whatsoever, upon the City because it entered into this A~reement or because of the terms of this
A~reement.
11.8 Reservation ofRights. W'ah respect to Seaions 11.1 through ll.7herein, City
reserves the right to either (1) approve the attorney(s) which Owner selects, hires, or otherwise
engages to defend City hereunder, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, or (2) conduct
its own defense, provided, however, the Owner shall reimburse City forthwith for any and nil
reasonable expenses incurred fur such defense, including attomey's fees, upon billing and accounting
therefor.
11.9 Su~val. The provisions of this Section 11.1 to 11.9, inclusive, shall survive
the termination of this Agreement.
12. Public BenefitS, Public Improvements and Facilities.
R:\PIA~NING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 10
12.1 Inter. Tbe parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement confers private
benefits on the Owner which should be balanced by commensurate public benefits. Accordingly, the
parties iraend to provide consideration to the public to balance the private benefits conferred on the
Owner by providing more fully for the satisfaction of the public needs resulting fi'om development
of the Project.
12.2 Interim Public Facilities Fee.
(a) In lieu of the County Development Agreement Fee, RSA Fee or City Public
Facility Fee, for a period of five (5) years commencing on the Effective Date, Owner shall pay an
Interim Public Facilities Fee of Three Thousand Five Hundred end Ninety Dollars ($3,590.00) per
dwelling unit inclusive of Street Improvement Fees, Traffic Signalization Fees, Parks and
Recreation Fees and Library Fees. The Interim Public Facilities Fee shall be paid as provided in
Section 12.3 below. At the conclusion of the five (5) year period, Owner shall either continue to pay
the Interim Public Facilities Fee of Three-Thousand-Five-I-hmdred end Ninety Dollars ($3,590.00)
per dwelling or such other public facilities fee as the City has then enacted and applied to residential
development projects in the City. Owner expressly acknowledges the existence and holding in the
case of Kau~n~n and Broad Central Valley, Inc. v. City of Modesto, (1994), 25 Cal. App.4th 1577
, as it applies to later adopted fees. Owner hereby waives for himself, and for any successor thereto,
the right to challenge the validity or amount of any such other public facilities fees which are enacted
and applied to residential development projects in the City. Such waiver applies to the Project aRer
the first five (5) years of this Agreement. Owner acknowledges and agrees that City would not have
entered into this Agreement if its application or operation would limit in any way the City's ability to
develop and apply a Comprehensive Public Facilities Fee Program to this Project following the first
five (5) years of the term of this Agreement. Owner further acknowledges and agrees that the waiver
provided herein applies not only to this Agreement, but to any rights Owner may have under any
vesting map filed and deemed complete under the vesting maps statutes, Government Code Section
66498.1 ~. Finally, Owner agrees that the institution of any legal action by Owner, or any
successor thereof~ to challenge the validity, amount, or application of any public facilities fee after the
first five (5) years of this A~reement, including paying such fees "under protest" pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020 tLa~, shall constitute a material breach and default under this
A~reement entitling the City to summary termination hereof.
(b) The fees required by paragraph (a) shall be adjusted annually during the term of
this Agreement on the anniversary of the Effective Date in accordance with the changes in the
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers in the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside Area
(hereina~er CPI) published monthly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The annual adjustment
shall be calculated in the following manner:
(i) Divide the CPI for month and year of the EffectiVe Date into the CPI
for the month immediately preceding the anniversary in which the fees are to be adjusted.
(ii) Multiply the quotient obtained by the calculation in sub-paragraph (i)
above times the fees.
R:\PLANNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 11
Qii) The remit of the multiplication obtained in sub-paragraph (ii) above
shall constitute the fees payable during the succeeding year.
If the CPI specified herein is discontinued or revised during the term of this
Agreement, such other government index or computation with which it is replaced shah be used in
order to obtain substantially the same result as would have been obtained if the CPI had not been
discontinued.
12.2.
h no event shall the fees be less tlum the fees set forth in paragraph (a) ofthisSection
12.3 Timin_~. Collection of any and all Interim Public Facilities Fees and/or City
Public Facilities Fees, if any, required to be paid by Owner pursuant to this Agreement shall be
deferred until such lime as a certificate of occupancy has been obtained for the first production home
built on the Property. Thereafter, the Iw. erim Public Facilities Fees and/or City Public Facilities Fees,
if any, shall be paid at the time issuance of building permits for each residential unit constructed on
the Property. Collection of any and all Interim Public Facilities Fees and/or City Public Facilities Fees
paid by the Owner for all home units paid prior to adoption of the Agreement in surplus to those fees
contained herein shall be credited to Owner.
12.4 Other Apl)licable Fees.
(a) Owner shall also pay all other customary and typical development enctions, for
a project of this size and nature, in existence as of the Effective Date and throughout the term of this
Agreement, not included in the luterim Public Facilities Fee, pursuant to provisions of City
ordinances and resolutions in existence when paid.
Co) The parties hereto agree that to the extent the applicable Stevea' s Kangaroo Rat
and drainage fees have not been paid prior to the execution of this Agreement by both parties, those
fees remain applicable to the Project.
12.5 Public Works. If0 wner is required by this Agreemem or any other obligation,
to construct any public works facilities which will be dedicated to City or any other public agency
upon completion, and if required by applicable laws to do so, Owner shall perform such work in the
same manner and subject to the same requirements as would be applicable to City or such other public
agency should it have undertaken such cunst~uction.
13. Reservation of Authority.
13.1 Limitations. Reservations. and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other
provision of the Agreement, the following Subsequent Land Use Regulations shall apply to the
development of the Property:
(a) Processing fees and charges imposed by City to cover the estimated actual
costs to City of processing applications for Subsequent Development Approvals.
R:\PLANNING\130pA96.~A 9/11/96 mf 12
(b) Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications,
notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, and any other matter of
procedure.
(c) Regulations imposing Development Exaction' s; provided, however, that no
such subsequently adopted Development Exaction's shall be applicable to development of the
Property unless such Development Exaction' s are applied uniformly to development throughout the
City.
(d) Regulations governing construction standards and specifications including
without limitation, the City% Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code, and
Fire Code.
(e) Regulations which are NOT in conflict with the Development Plan. Any
regulation, whether adopted by initiative or otherwise, limiting the rate or timing of development of
the Property shall be deemed to conflict with the Development Plan and shall therefore not be
applicable to the development of the Property.
(f) Reg~flntions which are in conflict with the Development Plan, provided Owner
has given written consent to the application of such regulations to development of the Property.
13.2 Subsequent Development Approvals. This Agreement shall not prevent City,
in acting on Subsequent Development A!~provals, from applying the Subsequent Land Use
Regulations which do not conttiet with the Development Plan, nor shall this Agreement prevent City
from denying or conditionally approving any Subsequent Development Approval on the basis of the
Existing or Subsequent Land Use Regulations not in conflict with the Development Plan.
13.3 Modification or SuSpension by State or Federnl Law. In the event that State
or Federal laws or regulations enacted alter the Effective Date of this Agreement prevent or preclude
compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement
shall be modified or suspended as may b~ necessary to comply with such State or Federal laws or
regulations. In that event, bowevff, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent
it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not
render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce.
13.4 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. It is acknowledged by the parties that
other public agencies not within the control of City possess authority to regulate aspects of the
development of the Property separately from or join~y with City and this Agreement does not limit
the authority of such other public agencies.
13.5 Tentative Tract M~p Extension. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 66452.6
of the Government Code, the tentative subfiivision map(s) or tentative parcel map(s) (vested or
regular) approved as a part of implementing the Development Plan shall be extended to expire at the
end of the term of this Agreement.
R:\PLANNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 13
13.6 Vesting TentativeM~ps. If any tentative or fmal subdivision map, or tentative
or final parcel map, heretofore or hereafter approved in connection with the development of the
Property, is a vesting map under the Subdivision Iviap Act (Government Code Section 664 10, l~L/t~)
and Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, as the same were incorporated by reference into the
Temecula Municipal code by Ordinance No. 90-04, and if this Agreement is determined by a final
judgment to be invalid or unenforceable insofar as it grants a vested right to develop to the Owner,
then and to that extent the fights, obligations, and protections afforded the Owner and City
respectively, under the laws and ordinances applicable to vesting maps shall supersede provisions of
this Agreement. Except as set forth immediately above, development of the Property shall occur only
as provided in this Agreement, and the previsions in this Agreement shall be controlling over
conflicting provisions of law or ordinances concerning vesting maps.
14. Development ofthe Properl~, Vesting Termination of Development Agreement No. 3
14.1 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, including payment
of the Interim Public Facilities Fee, the Owner shall have a vested right to develop the Property in
accordance with, and to the extent of the Development Plan. The Project shall remain subject to all
Subsequent Development Approvals required to complete the Project as contemplated by the
Development Plan. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the permiRed uses of the
Property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and
provisions for reservation and dedication of land for public purposes shall be those set forth in the
Development Plan. In exchange for the vested right to develop pursuant to this Agreement, Owner
expressly waives for himself and for any successor thereto, the right to challenge or contest the
validity of any condition of approval attached to any entitlement which is a part of the Development
Plan.
14.2 Effect of Agreement on Land Use Re~gulations. Except as otherwise provided
under the terms of this Agreement, including the payment of the Interim Public Facilities Fee, the
rules, regulations, and official policies gov~ning permitted uses of the Property, the density and
intensity of use of the Property, the maximum height size of proposed buildings, and the design,
improvement and construction standards and specitications applicable to development of the Property
shall be Existing Land Use Regulations. City shall exercise its lawful reasonable discretion in
connection with Subsequent Development Approvals in accordance with the Development Plan, and
as provided by this Agreement including but not limited to, payment of the Interim Public Facilities
Fee and/or the City Public Facilities Fee, as the case may be. Cxty shall accept for processing review,
and action all applications for Subsequent Development Approvals, and such applications shall be
processed in the normal manner for processing such matters. City may, at the request of Owner,
contract for planning and engineering consultant services to expedite the review and processing of
Subsequent Development Approvals, the cost of which shall be borne by Owner.
14.3 Changes and Agreements. The parties acknowledge that refinement and further
development of the Project will require Subsequent Development Approvals and may demonstrate
that changes are appropriate and mutually desirable in the Existing Development approvals. In the
event the Owner finds that a change in the Existing Development Approvals is necessary or
appropriate, the Owner shall apply for a Subsequent Development Approval to effectuate such
change. Ifapproved, any such change in the Existing Development Approvals shall be incorporated
R:\PL~qNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 14
herein as addendum to this Agreement and may be further changed from time to time as provided in
this Section. Owner, shall, within thirty (30) days of written demand by City, reimburse City for any
and all reasonable costs, associated with any amendment or change to this Agreement that is initiated
by Owner or Owners successor - without regard to the outcome of the request for amendment or
change to this Agreement. Unless otherwise required by law, as determined in City% reasonable
disctalon, a clm~e to the Existing Development Approvals shall be deemed "minor" and not require
an amendment to this Agreement provided such a change does not:
(a) Alter the permitted uses of the Property as a whole, except as provided in
Section 9 hereof; or,
(b) Increase the density or intensity of use of the Property as a whole; or,
(c) Increase the maximum height and size of permitted buildings; or,
(d) Delete a requirement for the reservation or dedication of land for public
purposes within the Property as a whole; or,
(e) Constitute a project requiring a subsequent or a supplemental Environmental
Impact Report pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code.
14.4 Minimum Unit Size. Owner agrees that the units to be constructed on the
Property shall be a minimum of two thousand (2,000) square feet in size.
14.5 TeH anatinn of Development Agreement No. 3. Both City and Owner agree
that on the Effective Date 0fthis Agreement, Development Agreement No. 3 shall be terminated and
of no further force or effect as to this Project only, having been replaced by this Agreement.
15. Periodic Review of Compliance with Agreement.
(a) Pursuant to City Resolution No. 91-52, as it may be subsequently amended,
City shall review this Agreement at least once during every twelve (12) month period from the
Effective Date of this Agreement. The Owner or successor shah reimburse City for the reasonable
and necessary costs of this review, within thirty (30) days of written demand from City.
Co) During each periodic review by City, the Owner is required to demonstrate
good faith compliance with the teams of this Agreement. The Owner agrees to furnish such evidence
of good faith compliance as City in the exercise of its discretion may require.
16. Financing District. Upon the request of Owner, the panics shall cooperate in
exploring the use of special assessment districts and other similar Financing Districts for the financing
of the construction, improvement, or acquisition of public infrastructure, facilities, lands, and
improvements to serve the Project and its residents, whether located within or outside the Property.
It is acknowledged that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring City or
City Council to form such a district or to issue or sell bonds.
R:\PLANNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 15
17. Agreement or Csncellation of Agreement. This Agreement nmy be mended or
canceled hi whole or in part only by mutual consent of the parties and in the manner provided for in
Government Code Sections 65868. ff an amenldment is requested by the Owner or its successor, the
Owner/successor agrees to pay City any Development Agreement processing fee then in existence
as established by City Council Resolution, or if no such fee is established, to reimburse City for the
actual and reasonably necessary costs of reviewing and processing the Agreement within thirty (30)
days of written demand ~'om City - without regard to Citys action on such amendment.
18. F. nforcement. Unless amended or canceled as herein provided, this Agreement is
enforceable by any party to it, notwithstanding a change in the applicable general or specific plan,
zoning, subdivision, or building regulations adopted by the City.
19. Events of Default. Owner is in default under this Agreement upon the happening of
one or more of the following events or conditions:
(a) If a warranty, representation, or statement made or fih-nished by Owner to City
is false or proves to have been false in any material respect when it was made;
(b) More than forty-five (45) days have passed since City's making of a written
request to Owner for payment or reimburseinent for a fee or service authorized or agreed to pursuant
to this Agreement.
(c) A~ndinganddeteminationbyCitythatuponthebesisofsubstantialevidence
the Owner has not complied in good faith with one or more at the terms or conditions of this
Agreement.
20. Procedure Upon Default.
(a) Upontheeccurrenceofaneventofdefault, City may tenninate or modif), this
Agreement in accordance with the procedure adopted by the City.
Co ) city does not waive any claim of defect in performaace by Owner implied if
on periodic review the City does not propose to modify or terminate this Agreement.
(c) Non-performance shall not be excused because of a failure of a third persun.
(d) Non-performance shall be excused only when it is prevented or delayed by acts
of God or an emergency declared by Governor.
(e) All other remedies at law or equity which am not otherwis~ provided for in this
Agreement or in Cites regulations governing elevalopment agreements are available to the parties to
pursue in the event there is a breach.
21. ~. In general, each of the panics hereto may pursue any remedy at law or
equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, except that City, and its officers,
employees and agents, shall not be liable in damages to Owner or to any assignee, transferee of
R:\PLANHING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 16
Owner, or any other person, and Owner covenants not to sue for claim any damages for breach of
that Agreement by City. It is acknowi~g~ by the parties that City would not have entered into this
Agreement if it were to be liable in damages Under or with respect to this Agreement or the
application thereof. Owner, for himself or any successor therefro, expressly waives the right to seek
damages against the City or any officer, employee or agent thereof, for any default or breach of this
Agreement.
22. Attorney% Fees and Costs. If legal action by either party is brought because of breach
of this Agreement or to enforce a provisio~ of this A~reement, the prevailing party is entitled to
reasonable attorneys fees and court costs.
23. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing
and delivered in person or sent by certified mail postage prepaid and presumed delivered upon actual
receipt by personal delivery or within three (3) days following deposit thereof in United States Mail.
Notice required to be given to City shah be addressed as follows:
To city:
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attn: City Clerk
With a copy to:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
Richards, Watson & Gershon
A Professional Corporation
333 So. Hope Street, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1469
Notices required to be given to Owner shah 10e addressed as follows:
To Owner:
Van Daele / WRI Associates, L.P:
Van Danle Development Corporation
2900 Adams Street, Suite C-25
Riverside, CA 92504
Attention: Brice H. Kittie, Vice President
A party may change the address by giving notice in writing to the other party in the manner provided
for herein, and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address.
24. Cooperation. City agrees that it shall accept for processing and promptly take action
on all applications, provided they are in a proper form and acceptable for required processing for
discretionary permits, tract or parcel maps, or other land use entitlement for development of the
Project in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. City shall cooperate with Owner in
providing expeditious review of any such applications, permits, or land use entitlement and, upon
request and payment of any costs and/or extra fees associated therewith by Owner, City shah assign
to the Project planner(s), building inspector(s), and/or other staff personnel as required to insure the
timely processing and completion of the Project.
R:\PLANNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 17
25. Miscellaneous Provisions.
25.1 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or
cancellation thereof shall be recorded with the County Recorder by the City Clerk within the period
required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code.
25.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire
understanding and agreement of the parties, and there are no oral or written representations,
understandings or ancillary covenants, undenalcings or agreements which are not contained or
expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings
or covenants shall be admi~qible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the
terms or conditions of this Agreement.
25.3 ~ERI~I~. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement
shall be determined invalid, void or unenfow, eable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be
affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform
taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the
provision of the Public Benefits set forth in Section 4 of this Agreement, including the payment of the
fees set forth ther~n, are essential elements of this Agreement and City would not have entered into
this Agreement but for such provisions, and therefore in the event such provisions are determined to
be invalid, void or unenforcenble, this entire Agreement shall be null and void and of no force and
effect whatsoever.
25.4 Interpretation nnd Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising
hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and cormnon meaning
to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect
that ambiguities are to be resolved against the dnLedn$ party shall not be employed in interpreting this
Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof.
25.5 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for
convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement.
plural.
25.6 Singular nnd Plurnl. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the
25.7 lointnndSeveralOblig~ons. lfat any time during the tenn ofthis Agreement
the Propea'y is owned, in whole or in part, by more than one Owner, all obligations of such Owners
under this Agreement shall be joint and several, and the default of any such Owner shall be the default
of all such Owners. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Owner of a single lot w~ich has been finally
subdivided and sold to such Owner as a member of the general public or otherwise as an ultimate user
shall have any obligation under this Agreement except as provided under Section 4 hereof.
25.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions
of this Agreement as to which time is an element.
R:\PLANNING\130pA96.13A 9/11/96 mf
25.9 Wsivff. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the
provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or ~e failure by a party to exercise its rights upon
the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist and demand
strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereaRer.
25.10 No Third P.rty Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for
the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall
have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement.
25.11 Force M~eure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where failure
or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods,
earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor
difficulties beyond the party's control, (including the party's employment force), government
regulations, court actions (such as restraining orders or injunctions), or other causes beyond the
pany's control. If any such events shall occur, the term of this Agreement and the time for
performance by either party of any of its obligations hereunder may be extended by the written
agreement of the pardes for the period of time that such events prevented such performance, provided
that the term of this Agreement shall not be extended under any circumstances for more than five (5)
years.
25.12 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and
also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benedited thereby
of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such bene~ted party.
25.13 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon,
and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this
Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitude and
constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act
hereunder with regard to development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon
every portion of the Property;, Co) runs with the Property and each portion thereo~ and (c) is binding
upon each party and each successor in interest during ownership of the Property or any portion
thereof.
25.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts,
which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as flail of the parties had
executed the same instrument.
25.15/urisdiction and Venue. Any action at law or in equity arising under this
Agreement or brought by an party hereto for the purpose of enforcing, construing or determining the
validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be fled and tried in the Superior Court of the County
of Riverside, State of Caiifornia, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of law providing for the
filing, removal or change ofvenue to any other court.
25.16 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and
provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance
of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement.
R:\PLANNING\130pA96.DA 9/11/96 me 19
Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute, with
acknowledgment or affidavit ifressonably required, and file or record such required instruments and
writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to
carry out the intent and to t~mlfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the
transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
25.17 l~minent Domain No provision of this Agreement shall be construed to limit
or restrict the exercise by City of its power ~ eminent domain.
25.18 ASent for Service of Process. In the event owner is not a resident of the State
of Caiifomia or it is an association, partnership or joint venture without a member, partner or joint
venturer resident of the State of California, or it is a foreign corporation, then in any such event,
Owner shall file with the Planning Director, upon its execution of this Agreement, n designation of
a natural person residing in the State of California, giving his or her name, residence and business
addresses, as its agent for the purpose of service of process in any court action arising out of or based
upon this Agreement, and the delivery to such agent of a copy of any process in any such action shall
constitute valid service upon Owner. If for any reason service of such process upon such agent is not
feasible, the~ in such everat Owner may be personally served with such process out of this County and
such service shall constitute valid service upon owner. Owner is amenable to the process so served,
submits to the jurisdiction of the Court so obtained and waives any and all objections and protests
thereto.
26. Authority to Execute. Each party hereto expressly warrants and represents that
hedshed they has/have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his/her/their corporation,
pannership, business entity, or govermnentai entity and warrants and represents that hedshed they
has/have the authority to bind his/her/their entity to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
R:\PLANNING\130pA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 2 0
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed by the authorized representatives of
the parties hereto.
'City'
City of Temecula
Attest:
By:
Karen F. Lindemans, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
Van Daele/WRI Associates, L.P.
A California Limited Pannership
Van Daele Development Corporation,
General Panner
By:
(typed name)
its
(tiae)
By:
[Notary Required]
its
(typed name)
(tiae)
R:\PLANNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 2 1
R:\PLANNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 22
State of California
County of
On
appeared
[]
[]
ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
)
)
1996, before me,
· personally
personally known to me -OR-
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence be the person(s) whose names(s)
is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they
executed the same in his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the
entity upon behalf of which the person(s) act executed the instrument.
Wimess my hand and official seal.
SIGNATURE OF NOTARY
[]
[]
CAPACITY CLAIMED
BY SIGNER
INDnrmUAL(S)
OFFiCER(S) (T~TLE[S]):
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
PARTNER(S)
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
SUBSCRIBING WITNESS
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER:
Chairperson
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
Name of person(s) or entity(ies)
R:\PLANNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 23
F,,XH[RIT A
EXISTING DEV'F-LOPIVI~NT APPROVALS
General Plan - Medium Density Residential
Specific Plan - County of Riverside Ordinance No. 460, Specific Plan No. 180 (Rancho
High]ands)
Land Divisions - Final Tract Map No. 22761
Final Tract Map No. 22762
R:\PLANNING\130pA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 24
E~HIRIT B
EXISTING LAND USE KEGULATIONS
General Plan Land Use designation is Medium Density Residential.
Specific Plan 180 (Rancho Highlands)
R:\PLA~NING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 2 5
Tract 2276 I, lots 18-80 inclusive
Tract 22762, lots 1-12 inclusive
EXHIBIT C
LEGAL DESCPdl~TION
R:\PLANNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 2 6
EXHIBIT D
REQUEST FOR NOTICE OF DEFAULT UNDER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Development Agreement:
Amendment and Restatement
of Development Agreement
Specific Plan No. 180, Rancho Highlands
Planning Application No.
Date:
TO:
City of Clerk and Planning D~rector, City of Temecula
Pursuant to Section 6(b) and (c) of the above-referenced Amendment and Restatement
of Development Agreement, request is hereby made by as Mortgagee for the
property (or portion thereof) to receive copies of any Notice of Default issued by City against Owner
in accordance with the terms and conditions of such Amendment and Restatement of Development
Agreement. Copies of any such Notices should be mailed to the following address:
CMongagee)
(Person/Department)
(Address)
(City/State/Zip)
(Telephone No.)
A copy of this Notice should be filed with the project ~e to insure proper and timely notice is
given. Under the terms of the Amendment and Restatement of Development
Agreement, as Mortgagee is entitled to receive copies of any Notice of Default
within ten (10) days of sending any such Notice to Owner. Failure to send any such Notice
may have serious legal consequences for the City.
This request is to remain in effect until revoked by
Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement is Terminated.
as Mortgagee or the
The person executing this document on behalf of the Mortgagee warrants and represents that the
entity he/she represents is a bona fide Mortgagee of the property and is entitled to receive copies of
Notices of Default under the Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement.
The undersigned declares the above information is true and correct under tlie penalty of penury
under the laws of the State of California.
Dated: ,1996
Mortgagee
R:\PLANNING\130PA96.DA 9/11/96 mf 2 7
Van Daele/WRI Associates, L.P.
A California Limited Partnership
Van Daele Development Corporation,
General Partner
its
Patrick J. Van Daele
(typed name)
President
(title)
By:
[Notary Required]
its
(typed name)
(title)
~s,s ~j m93~t.4 -28-
ALL PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California )
County of R~vers~de )
On
appeared
August 20, , 1996, before me, Terri Ann Moss
Patrick J. Van Daele
, personally
personally known to me -OR-
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence be the person(l~
whose names(~) is/a~ subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he/~re/tl,fl.y executed the same in his/ll~r/thefr
signature(~ on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf
of which the person(~ act executed the instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
SIGNATURE OF NOTARY
CAPACITY CLAIMED
BY SIGNER
0
0
INDIVIDUAL(S)
OFFICER(S) (TITLE[S]):
0
0
0
0
0
0
PARTNER(S)
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
TRUSTEE(S)
SUBSCRIBING WITNESS
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER:
Chairperson
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
Name of person(s) or entity(ies)
960815 Ij 1093541.4 -29-
The person executing this document on behalf of the Mortgagee warrants
and represents that the entity he/she represents is a bona fide Mortgagee of the
property and is entitled to receive copies of Notices of Default under the
Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement.
The undersigned declares the above information is true and correct under
the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California.
Dated: August 21, , 1996
Mortgagee Tokia Bank
430 Vineyard Ave., Suite 303
'~nature) _
~y_lyia Faber.
(printed name)
(title)
[Notary required]
This Notice is to be sent to both the City Clerk and Planning Director for the
City of Temecula at P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca 925989-9033 or such other
location as Temecula City Hall may be located in the future.
960815 Ij 1093541.4
By:
(signature)
Its:
(primed name)
(title)
[Notary required]
This Notice is to be sent to both the City Clerk and Planning Director for the City of Temecula at
P.O. Box 903t Temecula, Ca 925989-9033 or such other location as Temecula City Hall may be
located in the future.
CALIFORNIA
ALL-PURPOSE ' "':~
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
couNT oF
On ~/~-~/_x~ 21 [-/~ before me, NAME, TLE OF O ICE - E.G., "JANE DOE~,N~A~Y PUBLIC"
DATE ' '
personally known to me (or preyed to me on the bas;~ uf ba[ibi'dc;luf y ~vid~mlC~) to be the person(.O
whose name(~) is/ar~ subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that b~/she/
ttly executed the same in ~s/her/the(r authorized capacity(h~), and that by ~/'s/her/tl~tlr
signature(g) on the instrument the person(S, or the entity upon behalf of which the personls) acted,
executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE
(SEAL)
OPTIONAL INFORMATION'
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
NUMBER OF PAGES
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBITS
R:~TAFFRPT~I30pA96.FC 9/1Q/~6 mf 28
CITY OF TEMECULA
/ I
PA96-0130 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TM 22761 & 22762
EXHIBIT- A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
R:\STAF]~RPT~I30PA96.pC 8123/96m[
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 16, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0090 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: David Hogan, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA96-0090;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA96-0090; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 96-1next) approving Planning
Application No. PA96-0090 based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Rich Byer
REPRESENTATIVE:
John Potocki, John Potocki Associates
PROPOSAL:
Construct two 17,000 square foot one-story industrial
buildings on two separate one acre parcels.
LOCATION:
Parcels 6 and 7 of PM 21383 (south side of Winchester
Road west of Diaz Road).
EXISTING ZONING:
LI (Light Industrial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial), Public Institutional (PI)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP (Business Park)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant, Industrial
Vacant, Industrial
Vacant, Industrial
Vacant, Industrial, Utility Office
PROJECT STATISTICS
Parcel 6 Parcel 7 Total
Total Site Area:
43,560 sq.ft.
43,560 sq.ft.
87,012 sq.ft.
Building Footprint Area:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
17,219 sq .ft.
8,850 sq.ft.
17,492 sq.ft.
17,000 sq.ft.
8,935 sq.ft.
17,626 sq.ft.
34,219 sq.ft.
17,784 sq.ft.
35, 117 sq .ft.
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
35 spaces 35 spaces 70 spaces
35 spaces 36 spaces 71 spaces
Building Height:
Both buildings are Twenty-six (26) feet
BACKGROUND
The application was formally submitted to the Planning Department on June 3, 1996. A
Development Review Committee meeting was held on June 13, 1996. The project was deemed
complete on August 5, 1996.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the construction of approximately a 17,000 square foot industrial
building on a one acre site. Each building is expected to include approximately 1,000 square
feet of office space, 10,000 square feet of manufacturing space, and 6,000 square feet of
warehouse space.
Site Plan
The site plan meets the performance standards outlined in the Development Code (i.e,
circulation, architectural design, site planning and design and compatibility). Parking will be
located at the front and rear of the proposed buildings. Outdoor employee lunch areas have
been provided. The original designs for these buildings proposed loading areas at the rear of
the buildings. However, due to site constraints, the loading areas had to be moved to the sides
of each building to facilitate their use. The loading areas will be screened with landscaping and
stepped wing walls, The applicant has been cooperative with Staff in addressing all concerns.
The architecture is generally consistent with other buildings in the area. The building will be
tilt-up concrete. The elevations provide reveals, variations in textures and colors, and well
defined entrances to break up the buildings mass.
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 proposed buildings will support uses that are consistent with the Development Code and
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 impact~ will be mitigated.
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 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
provisions.
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.
Attachments: 1.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 4
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Initial Study - Blue Page 16
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 17
Exhibits - Blue Page 18
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plans
F. Color Elevations
G. Color and Material Board
H. Elevations
I. Typical Floor Plan
R:~STAFFRPTX90PA961'C 8/30/96 dwh 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0090 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO
CONSTRUCT TWO ONE-STORY INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
ON TWO (2) SEPARATE PARCELS LOCATED SOUTH OF
WINCHESTER ROAD AND WEST OF DIAZ ROAD AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 909-310-006
AND 909-310-007
WHEREAS, Rich Byer filed Planning Application No. PA96-0090 (Development Plan)
in accordance with the City of Temecuta's General Plan and Development Code, and Riverside
County Subdivision Ordinance, which the City has adopted by reference; and
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0090 (Development Plan) was processed
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Plantling Application No. PA96-0090
(Development Plan) on September 16, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in
opposition; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing 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. PA96-0090 (Development Plan); and
NOW, TtlEREFORE, TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Seclion 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA96-0090 (Development Plan) makes the following findings:
1. TIle 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
(Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, satiety and welthre. 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.
3. 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.
4. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA96-0090
(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. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA96-0090 (Development Plan) to construct two one-story industrial
buildings on two (2) separate parcels located sot, th of Winchester Road and west of Diaz Road and
known as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 909-310-006 and 909-310-007 subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a
part hereof.
R:XSTAFFRFIX901~A96.PC 813(1/96 dwh 6
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of
September, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0090 (Development Plan)
Project Description: To construct two one-story industrial buildings on two (2) parcels,
each containing 1.00 acre
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 909-310-006 and 909-310-007
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 De Minimus 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. PA96-0090 (Development Plan) which action is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter
4 (Section 21000 et see., 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.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D (site plan)
and the approved with Planning Application No. PA96-0090.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit H (elevations) and Exhibit F
(color elevations), or as amended by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, or as amended by
these conditions (color and material board).
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these
conditions.
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 s 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.
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 Ranning 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 shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
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 and
irrigation plans.
17.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. 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 packing 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
19.
20.
21.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
3 square feet in size.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to
guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Planning Manager.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
R:%STAFFR.FI~g0pA96.1,C 98/96 dwh ~. ]
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
22.
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.
23.
Submit at time of plan review, con~plete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
24.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
25.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disabled Access Regulations effective Apdl 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 calculations 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 obtained 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 grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency
with adjoining projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. Precise
Grading plans shall be submitted oa standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
R:~-~FAJ~FPJaT~90PA9~.PC 98~ 4tth 12
34.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
35. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
Prior to Issuance of · Grading Permit
36.
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.
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 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.
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.
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:
Rowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
be
Commercial driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard
No. 207A.
Cm
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.
9/9/96 dwh 13
e. Onsite curb and gutter shall be constructed per City of Temecula Standards Nos.
201 and 204.
Street outlets for onsite drainage shall be constructed per City of Temecula
Standard No. 301.
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.
42.
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.
43.
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 $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the
provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee
district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee
for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving his/her right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
45.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive 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
46.
The Developer shall construct all public and private improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
~um;e^~.~c 9~9~ ~/~ ]4
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.
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
49.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance
No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated August 13,1996, a copy of
which is attached.
50.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated June 13, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
51.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Environmental
Health Department transmittal dated June 15, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
R:~TAFFRF~90PA96.1~ 9/9/96 dwh ~5
CITY
August 13, 1996
TO:
ATrN:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTIVIENT
STEVE BROVv'N
PA96-0090
OF TEMECULA
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department
recommends the following ftre protection measures be provided in accordance with Temecula
Ordinalaces and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire Depam,,ent is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction
of a// commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. A fire flow
of 2125 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 (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 fh-e flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
Prior to the issuance of building permit the applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of
the water plans to the Fire Depa~hnent for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered
civil englheer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform
to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans a_re signed by
the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for
signature.
The requital water system, including ftm 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 sliall pay $.25 per square foot as
mitigation for fire protection impacts.
43174 BUSINE,S5 PAI~K DI~IVE "TEMECULA CALIFOI~NIA 92590 ® PHONE (714) 694-1989 ® FAX (714) 694-1999
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 Temecuh.
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE IV[BT PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
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 rifle page of the building
plans.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm systein. Plans shall be submitted to
the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires
Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data
· and key storage cabinets shall be installed..If building/suites are protected by a fire or
burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify
it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fkre hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middie o1[ the street directly in line with
fkre hydrant.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Depa~haxent for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane
painting and or signs.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
17. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All que.~ions ~garding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Dep~utment
pbnn~ng and engineering section (909)694-6439.
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
Rancho
Jeffrey L. Minlder
John F. Hennigar
Phillip L. Forbes
Kenneth C. Dealy
June 13, 1996
ZEIVED
1996
Mr. Stephen Brown, Project Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
APN 909-310-006 and APN 909-310-007
Parcels 6 and 7, Parcel Map 21383
Case No. PA 96-0090
Dear Mr. Brown:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of the Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water and
sewer service, therefore, would be available upon completion of the following
conditions between RCWD and the property owner:
1. Submittal of a request to RCWD for the determination of water and
sewer connection fees
2. Submission of the project plumbing plans, showing all waste lines
3. Copy of the project plot plan
4. Payment of the required Plan Check and Inspection fees
5. Application and payment of the required water meter and sewer
connection fees, and
6. If on-site fire protection is required, the 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.
Mr. Stephen Brown
June 13, 1996
Page Two
Please note that this property is within the sewer senAce area of the Rancho California
Water District; however, sewer service is currently being provided by the Eastern Municipal
Water District. The owner must contact RCWD for the required sewer connection fees
prior to discussing this project with EMWD.
If you have any questions, please contact the District.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WAFER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
cc: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Manager
FROM:
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Stephen Brown
PLOT PLAN NO. PA96-0090
DATE: June 15, 1996
II
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA96-0090 and has
no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAIL, for health clearance, the following items
are required:
3. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewefing agencies.
4. Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a
fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumb!ng 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.
5. 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.
6. Waste Rggulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA).
ML:dr
(909) 275-8980
NOTE:
Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of
Building Plan review for final DeparUnent of Environmental Health clearance.
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRIrr\901'A96.1K' 8/30196 d,,vh I 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
1. Project Tifie: Planning Application No. PA96-0090 (Development Plan)
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Tamect~a, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
CA 92590
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: David Hogan, Senior Planner (909) 694-6400
Project Location: Parcels 6 and 7 of Parcel Map 21383 (Winchester Road, west of Diaz
Road)
Project Sponsoes Name and Address: Rich Byer, 6867 #A Nancy Ridge Drive, San Diego,
CA, 92121
6. General Plan Designation: BP (Business Park)
7. Zoning: LI (Light Industrial)
Description of Project: Construct Iswo 17,000 square foot one-story industrial buildings
on two separate one acre parcels.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project is located in an area that has been
previously graded, and contains street improvements and utilities.
10.
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:~TAFFRPT~0PA96.IES 9tgt96 dv/a ]
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFELTED:
The environuum~ faaon cizck~ below wonld be pom~ially altect~i by this project, mvulving aI least one
impact ths is a ~Po~ntially Sj_~,ni~cant lmpa~~ as i~e~_~l by ti~ chocklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
IX] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[X ] Wamr [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Qm.fity [X] Aesthetics
[ ] Tra~on/Circulafion [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Erieray and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatt~ Findings of Si~i~cance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial ~wahmtion:
I fred that although the proposed project could have a siEni~cant effect on the environment, there will not be a
siSmi~cant effect in this case because the mitigation measures desa'ibed on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be pttpared.
R:~TAFFRP'I~GPA96.~,S S/~/~6 dvdt 2
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
sisni~m
NO
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a.Conflict with general plan designation or
(Source l, Fif~re 2-1, Page 2-17)
b.Conflict with applicable anvironmcntal plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(Sourcc l, Figure 2-1,Page 2-17)
d. Affect agricultural resources or operati~ms (e.g. impels to
soils or farmlands, or impa~ts from incompatible land usos)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-4, Psge 5-17)
e. Disrupt or divide the physical m'rangement of an eslablished
community (includins low-income or minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be propo,,l:
a. Cumulatively ex_~_~__ officil regional or local population
projects?
b. Induce substantial growth in an ares either directly or
indirectly (e.g. throuSh project in an undeveloped area
or extension ofmajor infr~structure)?
c. Disphw. e existing housing, especially affordable housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the propo,,l re. RIt
h or expo.e people to potentJut Impsel. hvoh, hl?
a. Faultrupture? (Source l,FigureT-1,PageT-6)
b. Seismic ground shag?
c. Seismic ground failure. including liquefaction?
d. Seiclie, tsunami, {ff volcanic h~m'd?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
f. Erosine. chnge~ in topoSraphy or unstable soil conditions
form excavation. grsding or ffil?
g. Subsidenceofthehnd?
h. Expansive soils?
[1
[]
[l
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[l
[1
Ix]
[1
[1
[1
L'x)
[x)
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[1
[]
Ix]
[1
[1
[]
Ix]
[1
[]
Ix)
ix]
[x]
[x]
[1
[1
[x]
[x]
[1
[1
(1
ISSUES AND RUPPORTINO INFORMATION
NO
i. Unique geologic er physical
4. WATER. Would the propo$ai mult h:
a. ChanSu in absorption rates, drainage patient, cr the
rsteendmountofsurfscemnofi~
Exposureofpeopleerpropertytowaterrelat~ihzards
such u~oodln~ (Source 2, Figure 13, Page95
Source 2, Figure 30, Page 190 )
Discharge into surf~ wa~rs ~ ~ alt~r~fi~ of ~
water quality (e.g. U:~petature, dissolv~l o~tg~n ~r
turbidi~y)7
d. Changesin~heamountofsuffa~w~inanywat~
c. Chang~inoummts, orth~oour~ordiro~i~fwat~
movem~mts7
Change in the quufity of ground waters, either throuSh
direct ~ditions c~ withdrawals, er through int~'c,~tion
ofanaquiferbycutsorexcavations~rthrouShsubstantial
loss of aroundwater recharge capability?
g. AlUn~cl direction ~ rate of flow of 8roundwaU:r7
I. Substantial reducfie~ in the amount of groundwater
o~ available for pubtic waler suppliu?
5. AI~ QUALITY. Would the propo,al:
a. Violale any air quality standard or conuibute to ~n
existmS er projecU~d air quali~ violation?
b. Expose scnsitive receptors m pollulauls?
c. Altcr air movemeat, moisture or tcmpersturc, or causc
anychanSeinclimatc?
d. Create objectionable ochrs?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
(]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
(1
(1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[l
[l
[l
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
P~
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[1
R3STAFFItFIX~.~.~I8 ~ l~a 4
ISSUES AND 8UPPO RTINO INFORMATION ~OURCE$
No
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. increase vehicle trips or trafl~ congestice?
(Source 4, Page 12)
b. Hazardsto sa~etyfromdesignfeatures(e.g. shmpcurves
or dangerous interscion or incompalible uses)?
c. /nadeq-,~*,'aneTgeacyac~esso~accesstonearbyuses?
d. Insufficitmt parkhg capacity on-site or off-site?
e. Hazards or bamers for ped____~rians or bicyclists?
E Conflicts with adopted policies supln~ing alternative
transportattire (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g. Rail, walex'oornc or air lrafiic impacts?
?. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, Would the propossl
a. Endangered, thrcatcncd or rsrc spccics or thcir habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fi~, insects, m~imals
and birds)?
b. Loc~y designated species (c.g. heritage trees)?
c. Locallydesignatcdnannlcommunitlcs(e.g. oskforcst,
cosstal habital, ctc.)?
& Wetland habitat (e.g. marsk ripmi~ and vernal pool)?
c. Wildlife dispcrul or migr~on coredors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RF. SOURCF,5,
Would the proposll:
a. Conflict with sdopted cacr~y conscrvatitm plans?
b. Usc non-renewal rcsources in a wastcful and incfiicicnt
C. Re, lit in the 1o88 of availabiJily of a klx)wll mlnefsx] rcsol~rcc
of the Slate?
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[3
(1
[3
[1
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
[]
R:iTAFFRI, l~0PA96,1F,,~ ~/~/~6~a 5
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
9. HATJ, RDS, Would the propreal involve:
s. Ariskafgcidentalexplosi~orreleaseofhazardous
subs)anees (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticide8,
chemical or rsdialitm)?
b. Possiblcintcr/acnccwithanemer~encyrcsJxmscphm
~ ancr~mcy evscumion plan?
hazard?
d. Exposure ofpeoplc to existing sources ofpotemi~l he4dth
hazards?
e. ~firehszsnJinareaswith~ammablehn~sh,
10. NOISE Would the proposal muir in:
a. lncrcesc in cxisting noise levels?
b. ExposurcofpcoplctDscvacno'Lsclcvcls?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the propman hnve sn effect
upon, or muir in s need for new or sitered government
services in any of the following stem:
a. Firc protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Mainta2snce of public fa~ilitics, incltulin~ hinds?
c. Otha govcmmcntal services?
12, IYrlLITIJ~ ,4d~D SERVICE SYSTEMS, Wanld the
propoui result in n need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
~ Powcrornatunlgas?
b. Communicatiom systems?
c. Local~rc~onalwa~rtremmcntordistribution
facilities?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[.]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
(]
[1
[l
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
["'x]
Ix]
[x]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[1
lx']
R:~STAFFRFF~0PA96~S 9/9/96 dwh 6
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
d. Sc~'~r ot Septic tarts?
e. Stor'ln water draini!~e?
f. Solid was~ disposal?
g. Local or regional watff supplies?
[] [] [1 Ix]
[1 [] [] Ix]
[1 [] [1 Ix]
[] [1 [1 Ix]
13. _~F, STHETICS. Would the proposal:
Affcciasccnicvistaorscc~ichighway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative acsthctic cffcct?
c. Create li~t or glare?
14. CULTUIU~ RESOURCEa Would the proposal:
a, Disturb palcontological rcsourccs?
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
(Sourc~ 2, FiSur~ 56, Page 283 )
c. Affcct historical r~,~ourccs?
d. Have the poUmtial to cause a physical change which would
affect uniquB ethnic cultursl values?
e. P~strict existing religious or saor~:l uses within thc potential
impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
[1 [] [] Ix]
[] [] [1 Ix]
[1 Ix] [] [1
[] [] Ix] []
[] [] ~] []
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] Ix]
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] []
[] [] [] ix]
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNI~ICANCL
tO drop below Self-SUStninin_,a levels, thpot,-n to e|iminal~:
a plant or animal COmmUnity, m lhe number of reslrict
tl= range of a rare or ,'--hm~n. ezed plant or animal or elimitmt~
important e~ample~ of the major periods of Califc~ia history
[]
b. Does the project have thc poicntisl to achievc short-tcrm, to the
disadvanta~ ofl~ag-tmn, e~vironmental goals? [ ]
Docs the project have impacts that m'ca individually
limited. but cumulatively considerable? ('Cumulativcly
consid~rable"meansthattl~ineremnaU~etfectsofa
project ar~ comiderable when viewed in ce~ectitm with
the effects o~ past projects, the effects of other cuz~ent
projects, and the effects of probable futu~ projects).
Does the project have envirc~nental eaec~ which will
c~u~ substantial ~lverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
17. EA1H .1F.R ANALYSES.
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
SOURCES
1. City of Ten~'ula Geunl Plan.
2. CityofTemeculaGeneralPlanFinnlEnvironmentallmpactRepott
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District .CEQA Air. Quality Handbook
4. Traffic Study for the W estside Business Cenl~e
R:~T~A96.~JI 9/9/96 dfa 8
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONI~IENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Plannirtg
1.b.
Th~ proj~'t will not conflict with applicabi, eavironmental plans or polices adopted by ag~ncks with
jurisdiction over the proj~t. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use
D~signation of BP (Busi~ss Park). Impacts from aH Csemmd Plan Land Use D~signations were
analyzed in fig Environm~ Impact P~ for (EIR) the C_~ Plan. Ag~m:ies with jurisdiction
Withill fig City c, oinm~lted OD th~ gOlg Of fig analySiS c, oRtaitgd in fig EIR ~ how the: ]nnd ~
project Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over fig project ar~ also being given fig opportunity to
cornmint oa tl~ project and it is ~ricip_~ that tlzy will ~ tiz appropriat~ cornmellt$ as to how fig
projact r~lates to figir spaci~c ~avironmantal plans or polices. Th~ projact site has b~n previously
on mvittmmmml plans ot poliom adopted by agmcies with jurisdiction over tim project No significant
e, ff~ts are anticipated as a r~sult of this proj~t.
The project will not disrupt or divide fig physical arrangement of an established community (including
any low-incanc or minority c~-,,,,mitics). The project iS an indnstria nsc in an area surrounded by land
that iS currently planned or Iging used by similar nscs. Theg is no established rcsi&mtial community
(including low-income or minority community) at this site. No significant effects arc anticipated as a
result of this project.
P~pulation and Hw,~ing
The project will not cumulatively ~w,~gd official r~gional or local population projactions. Th~ project
iS an industrial use which iS consistcat with fig City's G~gral Plan Land Us~ Designation of Business
Park. Since the project iS consiStent with fig City's Cw, n~al Plan, and does not cxcccxt fig floor area
ratio for Business Park, it will not bca significant contributor to population growth which will
gumulativ,qy exceed official regional or local population projections. No sL~ni~cant ~ffacts are
anticipa~i as a rcsult of this project.
2.b.
The projcct will not induce substantial growth in thc area eithcrdirectly or indircc~y. The project is
comistent with fig C_amcral Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park The project will cause people
to relocate W ot within Tem~ however, dag to its limited scale, it will not induc,~ substantial growth
in fig area. No significant dr~cts arc anticipatai as a result of this proj~t.
2.c.
The project will no~ displace housing, cspcciaRy affordable housing. The project site iS vacant; therefore
no housing will bc displaced. No significant e, ffccts arc anticipated as a rgsult of this projoct.
Geologic Problern~
3.b,c,g,h Thc proj~t will have a less than si~t, ni~cant impact on lurepie involving seismic ground slaking;
however, ther~ may Ig a potentially si~ificaat impact from s~ismic ground failure, liquefaction,
subsi&mce and expansive soils. The project is loc~t_ed_ in Southern California, a seismically active area,
nsat fig Wildomar Fault Zonc. Any potentially si,~ni~cant impacts will be mitig~t_ed_ tlh-ough building
construction which iS cons~t with Uniform Building Cod~ staadards. Funlgr, preliminary soft
reports have b~n submitted and mview~i as part of fig application submittal and reconun~ndations
cuntsined in this report will be used to dete, rmlne ~ppropriate conditions of approval. Tlg soils rel~orts
will also contain r~commcndations for fig compaction of fig soft which will s~rve to mitigate any
potentially si~oni~cant impacts from s~ismic ground shaking, s~ismic ground failure, liquefaction,
R:~ST~A96,F~ 9/9~ ~ 9
3.i.
4.c.
4.d.
subsidenc~ and ~pansiw soils. ~ mitigation measur~ nr~ p~rforn=d, no si~ =ff~ts are
anticipated as a result of~is proj~t.
TI= projoct will not expose people to a sciche, tstmami or volcanic hn,srd. Th~ projcct is not located
in an area whn~ any of tlgs~ hazards could c, cc,,_r. No si~i~cant effects ar~ anticipated as a r~sult of
this projoeL
The ixojcct will not expose pcoplc to landslides of ,routflows. The Final Environmental Impact for thc
City of T,-mt~,la General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on lhc site
or proximate to thc sitc. No si~i~cant impacts arc --ticipated as a rcsult of this project.
The project ~ hav~ a less than siEni~e~t impa~t from erosion, changes in topography, grading or fill.
The sit~ has begn pr=viously gra~ and tl~ project ~ not propos~ si,tmi~c~t grading bc'yond that
which has ~occurr~L Increased wind and wat~r etosion of so'~s both on and off-sit~ may occur
during tl~ ~nas'ma:tna phase of tlz project and tl~ project may r~sult in changes in s'fltation, d~position
~ =osi~ Etmi~ umlmi techniques will be included as a conditio~ of approval for th~ project. In th~
lo~g-nm, harriscape and landscaping will se~'v= as pe4manem ezosion conlxol for the project. Sinc~ the
amount of glading ~ b~ tho minifilial tl~o~saty for ~ r~ll,afiQn oftho proj~:t, modification to
topography and gtcnmd sa~'tac~_: ~.Ii~ffeatures will not be consid~d sLonificanL Potential unstable sod
condifi~m frcan e0a:avafi~ grading or fill will b~ mitig_~t__M_ through rig use of landscaping and prol~r
t~mp~ion oftl~ sods. ~ miligafion measm~ ~to porfortnod, no im,na~ts aro anticipated as a result
of this project.
The project will not impact unique geologi~ or physical features. No uniqu~ g~ologic featur~ or
physical features exist on the sit~. No significant impaas arc anticipated as a result of this project
The projcct will result in changes to absorption r~t_es, drainage pattcrns and the rate and mount of
surface runoff; howcvcf, thcsc changcs arc considcrcd lcss than si~oni~cant. Pz~riously pcrmcable
ground will Ig rendsred impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardgape and
driveways. While absorpli~n rates and surfa~ nanoff will change, potential impa~ts shall b¢ mitigatut
through site design. Drainage conv~amces will be required for the project to safely and adoqnat_~ly
handl~ runoff which is cre~t~L Ath' mitigation m~sures, no significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
The pmjcct may havc a potm~ally si~t, nificant cffcct on discharges into surface watt_ and alteration of
surface water quality. Prior to issuancc of a grading pamit for thc projcct, thc dcvclopcr will be
rcquircd to comply with thc rcquircm~ts of tl= National Pollutant Discharp E'hmmation System
(NPDES) peatnit fi'om the St~t,, Wa_t_m' Resources Contn~l Board. No grading shall be ln'mittM until
anNPDF, SNofic~oflnt~thasbomfiledorth=proj~ctis showntob~ox~apt. Byc~nplyingwithth~
NPDES re, quinmgnts, any potential impacts can bc mitig~_t_M_ to a l~vd less than significanL No
significant impacts are anticips_t_~ as a t~sult of this project
The project will have at less than si~t, ni~cant impact in a change in the mount of surface wate= in any
water body or impact curteats, or to the cours~ or ditoction of wat~ movements. Additional surface
rimoil will occur because previously pum~able ground will be rende~d iml~'vious by constriction of
b'mldingt, s~=., .:.anying harc~ and drivesrays. Due to th, limited scale of the project, the additional
amount of drainag~ into the Mutri~ta Cr~k is not considered significant. No significant impacts
anti~ip~_t_-d_ as a result of this proj~t.
R~T~A.~6.ff,89/9/96~v~I 10
4.f-h.
The project will have a less than sj~t, nificant chang~ in the qunntity and quality of ground waters, either
lhrough dim:t ~,tltiom or withdrawals, or through int~c~ption of an ~uif~ by outs or ~.cavations or
through substantial loss of groundwa~ rwJmrge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity
and quality 0fground w_nt_e~S; however, ~ to tl~ minar scale of fig proje~ it will not ig considered
si~oni~r~.nt Fmltg~, ccnst~._.~n ca fi~ sit~ will not be at depths sufficient to have a si~oni~ciat impact
on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipn3__~_ as a r~sult of this project.
4.i.
The projcct will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwatcr watcr othcrwisc
available for public watcr supplics. According to infomui,lon contain~ in thc Final Environmental
Impact Rcport for tl~ City of Temecula Cnmeral Plan, "Raacho California Watcr District indicate that
thcy can accommodatc additional water dcmands." Watcr scawico currcntly exists in fig immediate
proximity to thc project. Watcr scrvicc will nccd to bc proviclcd by Rancho Califomia Watcr District
(RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangcmants bctwccn RCWD and
fig property ownft. No s~itlcant impacts arc anticipated as a result of this projcct
The pmjm will mx violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or proj~ted air quality
violatio~ The pwjca (34,219 square feet ofj,,~h,~aial buildings) is below the threshold for potentially
significant air quality impact (276,000 squag fe~t) 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 si~nificant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project
5.b.
The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant po!lutants in
proximity to the project No ~i~ni~cant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project
The project will not alter air movement, moisture or ~mpc~re, or cause any Ohangc in climate, The
limited scale oftha: project pn~na~ it fi'om car, ating any sj,~mificant impacts on the environment in this
area. No si~niflcant impacts are anticipated as a result oftiris project.
5.d.
The project will create objectional odors dining tlz constmaion phase of the projc~-t. These impacts
will be of short duration and are not considered significant.
Transportation/Circulation
6.a.
The project will rcsult in a less than significant incrcasc in vchiclc trips; however it will add to traffic
congcstion. The project is located within the boundnty of a mastcr/cumulstivc lrnffic sm._dy for
approximately 600 acres ofi-&,~Uial development. According to the study, the total dcvclopmant will
causcpeakhourLcvclofScrvim"D'along_~n~-oftlgadjaccmroadwayconne~tions. IzvclofScrvicc
"D'isthcC, mmdPlanstandardforthccanmunity. Thc applicant will bc rcquired to pay traffic si~
mitigation fees and public facility fccs as conditions of approval for tlg projact to mitigatc its sharc of
the futu~ impacts. Afmr mitigation measures are pcrformui, no impa~ts arc anticipated as a rcsult of
this projot.
6.b.
Theprojegtvdllnotrsultinhn,nrdstosafetyfromd~signfe, atures. Tlgprojectisclesign~ltocurrcat
City standards and does no~ propose any h~,~nis to safety from design features. No si~ificant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not r~sult in inadequat~ emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is a
itwh,--~rial/o~ use in an area sith existing and planned similar uses. The project is designed
to c~mt City standards and has ,.t,-q,,st. emergu~y acccas. The project does not provide dir~t access
R:',STAFFRP'B,q¢~A96.~ ~9/9~ dwh ] 1
to nearby uses; fl~ it will not impact Exes____~ to nau/oy uses. No siEnificant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
6.d.
Th~ project will have suffuzient parking capacity on-site. The applicant ha~ complet~l a parking needs
analysis based utgm the uses proposed by this projact Based upoa this analysis, there will be suf~ciant
on-site parking spaces provided. Off-site parking will not be impaleted, NO sLm~i~cant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project
The project will not t~anlt in conflicts with adoptod policies supporting altemative transportation. The
project was lrnnm~tted to Ihe Riverside Tramit Agency (RTA) and their response ~nt~: "The proposed
project does not impact RTA facilities or sorvices." No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
Biological Resources
7.a.
The project will not result in an impact to andangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats,
including but not limitat 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 ofplnnts, no nmive vegetafion cn et adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any
wildlife species exist at this location. Ti~ project will not reduce the number of species, provide a
bamer to the migraticu of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is locn_t__~l_ within the
Stepben's Kangnroo Rat Habitat Fee Are~ While developmm~ of the site does not directly impact the
species, it does c~-n,la~vely impact ~e presumed traditional range of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat, The
impacts to the traditional range are imtigated through tl~ payment of Habitat Conservation fees
intended to mitigate the effects of cumulative regional deselopmeat patterns on the species. No
si,,oni~cant impacts are anticipn_t__M_ as a result of this project,
7.b.
The project will not result in an impact to locally design-t,~ species. Locally designer_M_ species are
protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the
City. Since this project is not 1~_~ 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. Refr4r, uce response
7.b. No significant impacts are antiCipn_Lnl_ as a result of this project.
7.d.
The project will not result in an impact to ~etland habitat There is no weftand habitat on-site or within
proximity to the site. No significant impacts are an~cip~_!_ed as a result of this project.
7,e.
The project will not result in an impact to wi~tnif~ dispersal ~ migration corridors. The project site does
not serve as part of a migration corridor. No sipi~cant impacts are anticip~_L.'a_ as a result of this
project.
Encr2v and Mineral Resources
Ti~ project will not impact and/or wn~ict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project vAIl be
mviewtd for o:-uvliance with aH applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check
steg~. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws.
No significant impacts are nnticip_~t_~ as a result of this project.
g.b.
The project witl result in a less than sLvni~cant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a
wastefulandinet~jentmmmer. While theg will be an iacr~ase in the rate of use of any nnturnl resource
S.c.
9.a.
9.b.
9.c.
9.d.
and in the daplction of nonranmvable resource(s) (consmiction mnt,~rials, fuels for thc daily operation,
asphalt, hmbcr) and thc subscquant depiction of thcsc non-rcncwablc natural rcsoorccs. E)uc to thc
scale of thc proposed dcvclopmcnt, tlicsc impacts arc not sccn as sLonificant.
The projea will not result in lhe loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the ruiclcnts of the Stnt~ No kllown mineral resource that would be of future
value to lhe region and Ilz residents of the State are located at this project site. No si~ificant impacts
arc anticip~,__~_ as a result of this project
Noise
10.8~
10.b.
Th~ project will not n~sult in a risk of explosion, or the release of any h~-srdous substanc~ in the evant
ofanecciintorups~annditionssincenc~eareproposedintherequest The same is true for the us~,
storagc, lranspon or disposal of any hazardous or toxic wnt,'rials. Large quantities of these types of
the project and the applicant mu~t receive thor ck~m~e prior to any plan check submittal. This applies
to storage and use of hazardous materials. No sL~ni~cant impacts arc anticip~t_M_ as a resuk of this
project.
Thc pwject will not interfife with an emergency response plan or an eanergeawy 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 thcrcforc not mipcdc any emergency response or
emergency evacuation plans. No sj~ni~cant impacts arc anticipatal as a result of this project
The project will not result in the crcation of any health hn~srd or potential health hazard. The project
will I~ reviewed for complianc~ with all applicablc health laws during the plan check stage. No pcrmits
will bc issued unless the project is found to b~ consistent with thes~ applicable laws. No si~nificaat
impacts nr~ aaticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards
arc known to bc within pWxlmity of thc project. NO si~t, nificant impacts arc anticipated as a result of
this project
The project will not result in an incrcase to fire ha,srd in an srca with ~ammablc brush, grass, or trees.
The project is not located within or proximate to 8 fire bm,ard area. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The proposal will ruult in a less than si,~,ni~cant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currcn~y
vacant and cL-velopmant of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during consmgtion
phases as well as ~ W noise in th~ ama ov~' tl~ long nm. Long-tcrmnoiscgcncratcdbythis
project would be similar to oxisting and proposed uses in the are~ No si~ificant noise impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term.
The project may cxpcsc pcoplc to scvere nsisc levels during the dcvclopmenffconstruction phase (short
rtm). C~sxsu~tica machinesy is capable of producin~ noise in the rangc of 100+ DBA at 100 fcct which
is midend veay annoying and can cause heating damagc from steady S-hour exposure. This sourcc
of noise will bc of slmst dutmion and thcrcforc will not bc considered significant. There will be no long-
term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~STAFFRPT~0PA~.~ ~ din/ 13
Publi~ Scrvi~
The project will have a less than si~ani~cant impact upon, of r~ult in a need for new or altered fi~ or
police protection~ The project will incremeatally increase the need for fire and police protection;
~, it will caltrib~ its fitir share to the mainttn~m'e of service provisioa from these cntitics. No
si~ani~cant impacts arc anticipated as a result of this project
ll.c.
The project wffi have a less than siEni~cant impact ulxm, or result in a need for new or altered school
facilities. The project will not ~ase si,~ni~cant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of
Temecula and thcrdore will not restfit in a need for new or altered school facilities. No si~ificant
impacts are anticipa~d as a result of this project.
ll.d.
The project will have a less than si_t, nificant impa~t for the maintemnnt.~- of public facilities, including
roads. Funding for mainttnance of roads is derived from tile Gasolilg Tax which is distributed to the
City of Temecula froin the Sta~ 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
siEniflcant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficAe~t to cover any of the proposed expenses.
ll.e. Th~projectw~nothav~ane~ctupon~rresultinan~dfornewora~teredgov~mmenta~grvices.
No siSmificant impms are antieip-_t_,-4_ as a result of this project
Utilities and S~rvi~ 5ystem~
12,a.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or
,,h,ral gas. These systems ate Curia:fly being deliven:d in proximity to the site. No si,~ni~cant impacts
are an~cip~_t_~_ as a result ofthiM project
12.b.
The project will not restfit in a need for new systcms or supplies, or substantial alterations to
communication systcms (rcfcrencc rcsponsc No. 12.a.). No siSni~cant impacts arc anticipated as a
result of this project
12.c.
The project will not tcsult in the need for sew systems or supplies, or substantial aRcrations to local or
regiomd watff trcaUncnt or dis~bution facilities. No significant impacts arc anticipated as a result of
this project
12.d.
The project will not result in a need for ncw system~ or supplies, or substantial altmaions to mmitaty
sewer systans ct septic tanks. While th~ project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems,
the Final Environmental Impact Rcpo~ (FEIR) forthe City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and
KCWD have indi~,t~ an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)."
The FEIK futlhet .~-,,~: "huplt,m,mtntion of the proposed General Plan would not si~ni~cantly impact
wastewater sayires Co. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no si_~nificant
im.ra:ts ate micipated as aresult ofthi, project Thete areno sepfic tanks oa site or proximate to the
site. No si~ificant impacts are anticip_t~ as a result of this project
12.e.
The proposal will result in a less than si~ni~cant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
altcrmi__azs to stcwm water drainagc. The projca will n_,:,x4_ to pmvid~ som~ additional on-site drainage
systm~. The thinage system will be required as a cc~lilicn of approvsl fet the project nna wiH tie inm
the existing system. No sjSmificant imp~'ts ale anticipated as a result of this project.
12.f. Thepr~p~sa~wi~~n~trcsu~tinanecdf~rncwsystcmsorsubstaatia~a~terati~nst~s~lidwastcdisp~sa~
systmas. Any potmtial impacts froan solid waste created by this development can bc mitig_~t~ through
R:~ST,~,Fr~P.~U.mS ~ ~ 14
participation in any Sotme Roehuron and Racycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No
significant impacts ar~ anficipattd as a result of this project
12.g.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alt~ations to local or
regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No sj~tmi~cant impacts are aaticipat~l as a r~sult of
this project
13.a.
Th~ project will not affect a scenic vista o~ scenic highway. Th~ project is not located in a area where
figre is a scenic vists. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No si~i~cant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b.
The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project are industrial buildings
in an area of existing and proposed similar uses. Tig building is consistent with other high quality
design in the area and proposed landscaping ~ provide additional aesthetic enhancement. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project
13.c.
The project will have a pot~ s~gnificant 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 pot~nlial to impact th~ Mount Palomar Observatoxy. The project will be conditioned to be
coRsi,stgnt with Ordinnn~ No. 655 (Ordinan~ Roguhting Light Pollution). No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project
Cultural R~sour~s
14.a,b,c
The project will not have an impact any known pnleontologic, archaeologic, or historic resources. The
site has been distmbed from prior grading activity. Because of the p~'vious grading activity on the site
and the limited scale of the project, no significant impacts are anticipated as a r~sult 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 res~ct existing religious of 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 pwject
~5.a,b.
The project will have a less than sLonificant impact or increase in (:l~nnnd for neighborhood or regional
parks ct other recreational facilities. Th~ project will not cause si~oniflcant numbers of people to relocate
w/thin or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an imaragntal impact or in an increase in
demand for neighborhood or regional parks or othff recreational facilities. The same is u~e for the
quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No sj_m~i~eant impacts are
anticip~_t_~ as a result of this project.
R:~TAFFRFr,~P.s~.W,8 9t9/96 dr& 15
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:~STAFFR~T~OpA96.pC 9/10~96 dwh ]7
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA96-0090 (Devdopment Plan)
Geologic Problemg
General Impact: Expose people to impacts from seismic Found
Mitigation Measure: Ensure that SOH compaction is to City Standards.
Specific Process: A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Rn~neer shall be s~lbi~_n_ed_ to the
Deparunent of Public Works with fig initisi grading plan check. Building pads
m'~ll be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to fig issuance of grading and building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Depar~nent.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground ~haHng.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with fig Uniform Building
Code.
Submit consU'uclion plans to fig Building and Safety Deparlment for approval.
Prior to fig issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Depariment.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or untoable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fall.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by fig Department of Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
R:xsT~mu,r~u.ms 9s~sa,e. 16
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Erosion, changes in topography or unslable soil conditions from excavation,
grsalm, or fill.
plantin~ of on-si~ landscaping ihat is con~i.~tent wilh lhe Development Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to lhe Planning Deparunent
for approval.
Prior to ~he iss~mnee of a building permit.
Party: phnnlng I~parlment.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic
ground failure, hnd~lides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hn-nrds.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer .e, hall be submitted to the
Deparim~nt of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Buildin~ pads
shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to ~he issuance of ~'luling permits and building permit.
Delxu'Unent of Public Works and Building & Safety Department.
Exposure of people or property to fault naplure, seismic ground shaking, seismic
ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake
Mitigation Measure:
Utilize consu'uclion leelmiques lhat are consistent wilh lhe Uniform Building
Code.
Specific Process: Submit construction plans to ~he Building & Safely Department for approval.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to ~he issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Building & Safety Depal~uent
R:~ST~Z~'~S0P~_q~.~S 9ss6a, e. 17
Miligafion Measure:
~ne project will result in Chan~ tO absorption rates, drainage panems and
rate and amOUnt Of surface runoff.
Methods of controlling runoff, from site so ~hat it will not negafvely impact
adja~nt properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into
site design and will be included on file grading plaR~.
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Submit grading snd dr~in~ge plan w lhe DeparUncnt of Public Works for
approval.
Prior to ihe issuance of grsding permit.
Depa, i~nt of Public Work.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Discharge into surface waters or o~her alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or mrbidity).
An erosion con:rol plan ~hnl! be prepared in aCCOrdance With City requirements
and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) ~hall be prepared in
accordance with ~he National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements.
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to ihe San Diego Regional Water Quality
Conlrol Board (3DRWQCB) for their review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
TranSportation/Circulation
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or waffic congestion.
Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvemems and Iraffic impacls.
Post bond @ $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00 and execute
agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee.
Prior to lhe issuance of occupancy permils.
DeparUnent of Public Works.
R:~STAFFRFrkgOpA~.~8 9/9/96 ds~h [ g
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
$pecifi~ Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee.
Pay pro-rata m%ar~ for traffic impacts (to bc dctcrmiw41 by tile Director of Public
Works.
Prior to ~ issuance of occupancy permits.
Departmere of Public Works.
Biological Resources
General In~pact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Endangered, thrcatcneA 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 $,~00.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat.
Prior ~ th~ issuance of a grading perillit
Depa~ment of Public Works and Planning Department
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Procc~:
Mitigation Milestone:
Rest~nsibic Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services
regarding fife 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 F'ffc Deigu tment.
Prior to the issuance of buildin~ permit.
Building & Safety Dcpafiment
R:~ST.~mU'T~m,~.S~.mS S/~S~ ,,~ 19
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & ~afety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including
roads.
Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public
facilities.
Post bond ~ $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00, and execute
agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee.
Prior to lhe issuance of building permits.
Party: Department of Public Works.
AESTHETICS
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 Building and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a bni]ding permit.
Buildin~ &. Salty Deparunent.
R~xn~yr~.ms m ~e~ 20
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
CITY OF TEMECULA
-SITE
_, ,~ '~ (~) VICINITY MAP
CASE NO. PA96-0090 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
BP
B~
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK)
CASE NO. PA96-0090 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 16. 1996
BP
R:\STAFFRPT\90pA96.PC 8/21/96 dwh
CITY OF TEMECULA
WINCHESTER
SITE PLAN
CASE NO. PA96-0090 (Development I'lan)
EXHIBIT- D
p PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEIX~BER 16, 1996
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
WINCHESTER
..... ' ~ROAD
SITE PLAN
CASE NO. PA96-0090 (Development Pla,0
EXHIBIT - E
PLANNING COh~I~IISSION DATE - SEPTEN~BER 16, 1996
LANDSCAPE PLAN
EXHIBIT
CASE #
B
F
C
E
D
FINISH SCI-IEDULE
A, Glass: Silver reflective with clear aluminum storefront
Alternate: "Greylite 14"
B. Concrete Paint: White
C. Concrete Paint: Off White or Light Grey
D. Black or Dark Grey
E. Medium Grey
F. Accent Color
WINCHESTER INDUSTRIAL
RICH BYER
6867 Nancy Ridge Drive, #A
San Diego, CA 92121
EXHIBIT
CASE #
CITY OF TEMECULA
ELEVATIONS
CASE NO. PA96-0090 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - H
PLANNING COMI~ISSION DATE - SEPTE~X~BER 16, 1996
ELEVATIONS
· Q FLOOR PLAN
CASE NO. PA96-0090 (Development I'lan)
EXHIBIT - I TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN
PLANNING COMlX~ISSION DATE - SEI'TE~I~ER 16, 1996
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 16, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0170 (Development Plan, Fast Track - Napa Auto Parts
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA96-0170;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. P96-0170;
ADOPT Resolution No. 96-__ recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA96-0170 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Alan Orr - Napa Auto Parts
REPRESENTATIVE:
Russell Rumansoff, Herron + Rumansoff
PROPOSAL:
The design construction and operation of a 12,500 square foot
facility for Napa Auto Parts
LOCATION:
North side of Sanborn Avenue, approximatley three hundred fifty
(350) feet east of the intersection of Jefferson and Sanborn
Avenues
EXISTING ZONING:
SC (Service Commercial)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
SC (Service Commercial)
SC (Service Commercial)
SC (Service Commercial)
SC (Service Commercial)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
R:\STAFFRPT',ITOPA96.PC 8/28/96 klb
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SC (Service Commercial)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Office/Distribution (FedEx)
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Total Site Area:
Building Area:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
1.2 acres
12,500 square feet
11,270 square feet
29, 160 square feet
42 spaces
46 spaces
Twenty-five (25) feet
BACKGROUND
A pre-application meeting was held for this project on July 17, 1996. The application was
formally submitted to the Planning Department on July 30, 1996. A Development Review
Committee (DRC) meeting was held on August 15, 1996. The project was deemed complete
on August 22, 1996.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the design, construction and operation of a auto parts sales and distribution
facility on 1.2 acres. The building will be twenty-five (25) feet high and 12,500 square feet
in area. The project is a Fast Track project and the grading plan and building construction
plans have been submitted and are currently being reviewed by staff.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The project will take access from Sanborn Avenue. Customer parking will be in the front and
on the western side of the project. Loading facilities, employee parking and an employee patio
area will be at the rear of the site. The rear portion of the site will be fenced and gated. The
gate will be wrought iron. Fencing will be wrought iron in the areas it is visible from the public
way and chain link in those areas not visible from the public way. This is consistent with the
provisions contained in the Development Code.
Architecture & Colors
The building will be constructed of tilt-up concrete, with a glass storefront. Originally, the
applicant approached the Planning Department with an elevation depicting the entire building
painted blue. A gold accent band was also included on this elevation. Staff recommended the
R:XSTAFFRPT~ITOPA96.pC 8/28/96 klb 2
applicant consider other color schemes to be consistent with the existing development in the
area. Their subsequent submittal consisted of only the storefront portion of the building being
painted blue, and the remainder of the building to remain the "natural" color of the concrete.
The gold accent band will remain on the building. The gold accent band at the storefront will
be an illuminated tube. The remainder of the gold accent band will be painted.
Landscaping
Twenty-one percent of the site has been landscaped. This is consistent with the twenty
percent minimum landscaping requirement in the SC (Service Commercial) zone. The front of
the project has informal groupings of trees to allow for maximum visibility of the storefront.
Landscaping has been enhanced at the southeast corner of the project. This will serve to better
screen the gates on the east side of the building.
Letters Received on the Proiect
Staff has received several letters in support of the project. In addition, a letter was received
from the North Jefferson Business Park Architectural Review Committee which states the
project is consistent with the standards of their Development Regulations covering the property.
All letters are included in Attachment No. 5.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Existing zoning for the site is SC (Service Commercial). Retail sales and distribution facilities
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 SC (Service
Commercial). 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 a Fast Track project and the grading plan and building construction plans have
been submitted and are currently being reviewed by staff. 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. The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan,
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 the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
provisions.
R:\STAFFRFrXlTOPA96.pC 8,t28/96 klb 3
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.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Initial Study - Blue Page 16
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 34
Exhibits - Blue Page 41
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. Elevations
Letters received - Blue Page 42
R:\STAFFRPTH70PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:\STAFFRPT~I70PA96.PC 8/28/96klb ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0170 (DEVEIX)PMENT PLAN,
FAST TRACK - NAPA AUTO PARTS) TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A 12,500 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY FOR NAPA
AUTO PARTS ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.27 ACRES
LOCATED ON SANBORN AVENUE, THREE HUNDRED
FIFTY (350) FEET EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
JEFFERSON AND SANBORN AVENUES AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-202-023
WHEREAS, Alan Orr - Napa Auto Parts filed Planning Application No. PA96-0170
(Development Plan- Fast Track) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0170 (Development Plan- Fast Track) was
processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0170
(Development Plan- Fast Track) on September 16, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support
or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA96-0170 (Development Plan - Fast Track);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA96-0170 (Development Plan - Fast Track) makes the following findings; to wit:
A. The proposed use is in conformm~ce 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 the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
R:\STAFFRPT'xI70PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb {~
B. 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.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA96-0170 to construct and operate a 12,500 square foot facility for
Napa Auto Parts on a parcel containing 1.27 acres located on Sanborn Avenue, approximately
three hundred fifty (350) feet east of the intersection of Jefferson and Sanborn Avenues and known
as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-202-023 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated
herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that tile foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of
September, 1996 by tile following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:XSTAFFRPT\I70PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 7
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~STAFFRF~ITOPA96.PC 8/28196 klb 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0170 (Development Plan, FastTrack - Napa Auto
Parts}
Project Description: A Development Plan to construct and operate e 12.500 square
foot facility for Napa Auto Parts
Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-202-023
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order 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).
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City. or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application
No. PA96-0170 (Development Plan - Fast Track). City shall promptly notify the
developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is
sought and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action.
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.
4. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, approved
with Planning Application No. PA96-0170, or as amended by these conditions.
a. A minimum of forty-six (46) parking spaces shall be provided.
b. A minimum of two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
c. Four (4) Class I lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these
conditions.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F and Exhibit G (Color
Elevations), or as amended by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit H (color and material
board), or as amended by these conditions.
Sand Blasted Concrete
Painted Concrete & Pipe Rail
Acrylic Band and
Painted Concrete Reveal
Metal doors and Frames
Glazing
Aluminum Storefront
Grey
Benjamin Moore #819
Napa Standard Pantone Matching System (PMS) 123
Frazee #8804 Pavestone
Light Solar Gray
Clear Annodized Aluminum
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded
by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required
by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
10. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
11.
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.
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
R:XSTAFFRIq~170PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 10
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 shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
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 Planning Manager. 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
19.
20.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
3 square feet in size.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager 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.
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
22. 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.
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 comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1o 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 appropriate staml~ of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
29. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
30. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project. All conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government
Agency.
General Requirements
31. 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.
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.
R:'~STAFFRPT',I'70PA96.PC 8128196 klb 1 ~
33.
All grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency
with adjoining projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. Precise
Grading plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
34.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
35.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
36.
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.
37.
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.
Commercial driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard
No. 207A.
Cm
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Onsite curb and gutter shall be constructed per City of Temecula Standards Nos.
200 and 204.
Street outlets for onsite drainage shall be constructed per City of Temecula
Standard No. 301.
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.
38.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
39.
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.
R:~,STAFFRPT~ITOPA96.PC 8F28/96klb 13
40.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
41.
An Area Drainage Plan 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
42.
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.
43.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established
per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
44.
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 $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the
provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee
district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee
for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving his/her right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
45.
The Developer shall construct all public and private improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
46.
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
P-:',STAFFRI~T~lTOPA96.PC g/2g196 klb 14
47.
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
48.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated August 14, 1996, a
copy of which is attached.
49.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated August 12, 1996, a copy of which is attached,
50.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rnacho California
Water District's transmittal dated August 8, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
51.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Fire Department's transmittal dated August 7, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
R:',STAFFRPT~ITOPA96.PC 8/28/'~, klb 15
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH By
DATE: August 12, 1996
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
AT'FN: Matthew Fagan
FROM: ~0 q~P~GOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV
RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA96-0170 (FAST TRACK)0-023
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Fast Track Plot Plan No. PA96-
0170 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:
3. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
4. A clearance letter from the HaTardous 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) HaTardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.2.
c) Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.1).
d) Waste reduction management.
5 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 Department of Environmental Health clearance.
Mr. Matthew Fagan
PA 96-0170
August 12, 1996
Page 2
SANITARY SEWER
The subject project is tributary to the District's Temecula Valley
Regional Water Reclamation Facility. An existing 6-inch sewer
lateral is located on the north side of Sanborn Avenue,
approximately 279 feet southwesterly of the intersection of Madison
and Sanborn Avenues. This lateral is adequate to serve the subject
project. However, the subject project must be reviewed by the
District's Source Control Division to determine the need for grease
traps, sand traps, sampling boxes or other provisions.
RECLAIMED WATER
The project is outside of EMWD's water service area. Reclaimed
water service must be arranged with Rancho California Water
District.
ADDITION~J~ INFORMATION
Additions or improvements to off-site facilities are not required
to adequately serve the subject project. The existing lateral is
adequate to provide service to the subject project. The project
will be processed through the Customer Service Department for
determination of appropriate fees and Source Control requirements.
Tracking of the project shall be coordinated through the "One-Stop"
program by Ms. Judith Conacher at (909) 766-1810, ext. 4409.
Thank you for soliciting our concerns and if you have any questions
regarding the above matter, please call me at (909) 766-1810.
Sincerely,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Mike Gow, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Customer Service Department
Eastern Municipal W, st er District
Matthew Fagan
Planning Department
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
August 12,
1996
SUBJECT: PA96-0170 (Napa Auto Parts) - Agency Case Transmittal
Dear Mr. Fagan:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below:
GENERAL
Our understanding is the proposed subject project will develop a
12,500 sq. ft. Napa Auto Parts sales and distribution facility on
1.27 acres in APN 910-202-023. The subject project is located on
the north side of Sanborn Avenue, east of Jefferson Avenue in the
City of Temecula.
The subject project is within the District"s sewer service
boundary. A matter of importance which must be understood is the
available service capabilities of the District's systems are
cons~antiy changing due to the continuous development wi=hin the
District and the improvement of District facilities. Hence, the
service for the subject project will be dependent upon the
available capacity of the District's systems at the time service
agreements are made with the District.
DOMESTIC WATER
The subject project is outside of EMWD's water service area. Any
potable water service must be arranged with the Rancho California
water District.
Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinco, California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet. CA
Operations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road. Pertis, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177
lhncho
Watar
August 8, 1996
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
Water Availability
Parcel 10 of Parcel Map 23561-i, APN 910-202-023
Planning Application No. PA96-0170
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District CRCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and
requirements.
Water availability would be contingem 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
w96XSB:eb202]FOI2tFEF
cc: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
August 7, 1996
TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OF T M CULA
MATrHEV~ FAGAN
PA96-0170
NAPA AUTO PARTS
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department
recommends the following FLr~ protection measures be provided in accordance with Temecula
Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire Department is required to set a mini~lm fiZ~ flOW for the remodel or construction
of all commercial building using the proc~Jures established in Ordinance 546. A fLre flow
Of 1500 GPIVI for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be avsibble
before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site sups 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 fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system.
The reclui~d water system, including fLre hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate wamr 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 fLre 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.
43i74 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE * TE~4I~CULA CALIFORNIA 92590 · PHO,~E (714)694-1989 · FAX (714)694-1999
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MEt PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Iratall a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fu'e
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.
15.
· Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans shall be submitted to
the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
16.
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires
HaT~ous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the KnOx HAZ MAT Data
and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a f'n'e or
burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
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 axe required by section
3314(a).
/nstall portable fire extinguishcrs wkh a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
It is prohibited to use/process or store any matetiffs in this occupancy that would classify
it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and drive~vays to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
fire hydrant.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane
painting and or signs.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
17. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All qxiestions regarding the menning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Depaxtment
Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439.
Laun Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRIrEXI70PA96.PC 8/2g196 klb I 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
2.
3.
4.
10.
Project Title:
Planning Application No. PA96-0170 (Development Plan -
Fast Track)
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:
North side of Sanborn Avenue, three hundred fifty (350)
feet east of the intersection of Jefferson and Sanborn
Avenues
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Alan Orr - Napa Auto Parts 41975 4th Street, Temecula,
CA 92590
General Plan Designation:
SC (Service Commercial)
Zoning:
SC (Service Commercial)
Description of Project:
TIle design. construction and operation of a 12,500 square
foot Napa Auto Parts Facility
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Vacant to the east, FedEx to the West, vacant to the north
and vacant to tile south
Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside
County Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Raneho
California Water District, Southern Calitbrnia Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company,
General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency
R:%STAFFRPTXlTOPA96.PC 8128196 klb 17
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would bc potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant ImpacC' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Scrviccs
[X] Water I ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality IX] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Rcsources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy. and Mineral Rcsonrecs [ ] 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 environment, there will not be a significant cffect in fills case because the mitigation measures described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Signature
Printed Name
Date
R:~STAFFRPTXlTOPA96.PC 8/28196 klb ] 8
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
hnpact
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
L,ei$ Than
Significant
Impact
NO
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would tile proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over tile prqiect?
c. Be incompatible wilh e×isling land use in tile vicinily?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
d. Affect agricultural resources or or~cral inns (c.g. inll~acls Io
soils or lhrmlands, ur iml~acts fi'om inconlpafil~lc land uses)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. DismptordividethephysicalmTangca~cnlofaneslablished
community (including Inw-mcomc or minority con~munity)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. W.uld be pnqmsah
a. Cumulatively exceed ofl~cial regional or local population
projects?
b. Induce substantial growth m an area either directly or
indirecfiy (e.g. tl~'ough prqicct in an taldcvclopcd area
or extension ofm~jor inli'aslructure)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially aflbrdablc housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Wnuhl tile i}rolmsal result
in or expose penpie to potential iml'ulcts inv.h'ing';
a. Fault rupture? (Source I, Figure 7-1. Page 7-6)
b. Seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic ground l~ilure, including liquclhction?
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
f. Erosion, changes in topography or trustable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or I1l]?
[1
]
]
[]
[]
1]
[]
1]
II
I]
[t
l]
[]
[]
[]
(]
I]
[]
[]
[]
l]
II
(x]
(l
(]
I]
[]
[]
(]
I]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
(l
[1
l)
ix]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
ix]
ix]
[x]
[x]
ix]
[]
11
[x]
Ix]
[]
R:~STAFFRFTM70PA96.PC 8128/96 klb ] 9
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOUI~CES
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incoq~orated
Less Than
Si~ificant
Impact
No
Impact
g. Subsidence ofthc land?
(Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68)
h. Expansive soils?
i. Unique geologic or physical l;:atures?
4. WATER. Would tile prolmsal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pauerns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff'?
b,
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? CSourcc 2, Figure 13. Page 95 and
Source 2, Figure 30, Page 190 )
Discharge inlo surlhce walers or olhcr alleralion ofsu~hee
water quali.ly (e.g. temperature, disscflved ox.~'gen or
turbidily)?
d. Changes in the amount ofsta'l~ce vcaler ia any water
body?
e. Changes in cur'ents, or tile ccmrsc or directiota of water
movements?
f.
Change in the quanlily of grota~d waters, either through
direct additions or wifi~drawals, or through inlereeption
of an aquifer by cuts or excavalions or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capahility?
g. Altered direction or rate ofllow of groundwater?
h. Impacts to groundxvater qualily?
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of grotmdwaler
olherwise available lbr public water supl~lics?
5. AIR QUALITY. W,,uhl tile pnqmsah
a. Violate any air qualily standard or contrihttle Io an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b. Expose sensitive reeeplors to pollulants?
c. Alter air movenlenl, nloisture or [enlpcralure, or cause
any change in climate?
[1
[1
[l
[]
[]
[l
[1
[1
I1
[]
11
I}
II
I1
[1
II
[xl
[l
[]
[]
IX]
[1
[1
[]
[1
[1
11
[1-
11
[I
[1
[1
ix]
[]
[1
Ix]
[1
[x]
ix]
ix]
II
[1
[1
[]
ix]
[1
Ix]
[]
ix]
l]
[1
ix]
[]
[]
l]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
[l
R:XSTAFFRFrX170PA96.pC 8128196 klb 20
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATIOIq SOURCES
Potemially
Significam
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
L.~ssThnfl
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
d. Create objectionable or. Jots?
6. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION.
Would the prupnsal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or trnlllc congestion?
b. Hazards to sali~ty from design li:aturcs (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompaliblc uses)?
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-silo or ol'l:sitc?
e, Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicycl ists?
f. Conflicts with adopied policies supporting altcrnalivc
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Wouh$ the I~r.posal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rarc species or their habitats
(including but not limited to planIs. Iish. insecls. anmlals
and birds)?
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage Irccs)?
c. Locally designated natural commuuifics (c.g. oak li,-cst,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d Welland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
e. Wildlife dispel3al or migralion con'idors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the i~rnposal:
a, Conflict with adopted energy conservama~ plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources ill n xvaslclill and iacllicient
mannel'?
I1
[]
f]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[l
11
[l
[1
I]
[l
(l
11
[]
II
[]
[1
[]
[1
[1
{1
[l
fl
I1
[1
[x]
ix]
[1
11
[]
Ix]
[1
[1
11
[1
11
[l
11
[]
[xl
l]
[]
/x]
ix]
[x]
[]
ix]
ix]
ix]
Ix]
ix]
Ix]
Ix]
ix)
I1
R:'xSTAFFRPT~I70pA96.PC 8128/96 klb 2 ]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Pote~.ially
Impact
Significam
Unless
Mitigation
Less Than
Signi~eanl
Impact
No
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value Io the region and the residents
of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the I~rolmsul involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles,
chemical or radiation)?
b. Possible intefl;mmce with an emergency r~sponse plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any hcahh hazard or polcnlial hcahh
hazard?
d. Exposureofpeopletoexislingsourccsofl~otentialhealth
hazards?
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with Ilammable brush,
grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result iu:
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to sex'ere noi.~ levels?
11.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Wouhl tile i`nroposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need ~r ile,,v or altered ~overonlent
sen'ices in any of the foilroving areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Maintenanceofpubliclhcilitics, mchtdmg roads?
e. Other govertm~ental se~-,'iccs?
[1
[l
[1
[1
[1
[1
I1
]
l
l
l
l]
[1
[1
II
[l
[1
[1
[1
[l
[l
II
[l
II
{1
[l
[]
Ix]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
[1
[x]
ix]
[xl
[1
[×]
[l
Ix]
[1
[1
[xl
[1
[1
[l
[l
[1
[l
[x]
R:XSTAFFRPT~ITOPA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 22
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significanl
Unlas
Miligalion
incotporaled
Less Than
Signillcam
Impact
No
Impact
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would tile
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alteratinns tn tile ~dJmvinR utilities:
a. Power or nalural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities7
d. Sewer or septic tanks7
e. Stown water drainage?
f. Solid waste disposal7
g. Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Wnuld tile prnposah
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway'~
b. Have a demonstrable negative aeslhcbc cll~:ct?
c. Create light or glare7
1-1. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Wouhl tile prnposal:
a. Disturb palcontological resources?
(Source 2, Figure 55, Page 280)
b. Disturb m'chaeologicaI rcsom'ccs?
(Source 2, Figure 56, Page 283)
c. Affect historical resotlrccs'?
d. Have the potential to cause a I~bysical change which xvould
affect unique ethnic cuhural values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses xvidm~ tile polential
impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would tile i~r. lmsal:
a. Increase the demand l;jr neighbovh,x.d or regional parks or
other recreational ibcilitics?
{]
[1
[]
[]
[I
[1
11
[1
f]
[]
[1
1]
l
]
]
[]
[]
[l
[l
[l
[l
{l
[]
I]
ix]
[]
[]
II
II
[]-
[}
[]
1]
[1
[1
[l
ll
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
l]
I1
[l
[1
[x]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
{xl
Ix]
[x]
[1
[x]
[x]
[xl
ix]
ix]
[]
R:',~TAFFRPT',I70PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 23
b. Affect existing recreational opporlunilies? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have Ihe potenlial Io degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce Ihe habital of a
fish or wildlil~. species, cause a fish or wildlil~ population
to drop below self suslammg levels, threalcn Io eliminale
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 m~jor periods of Calilbmia history
or prehisto~?
b. Does the project have the polenlial Io achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
C,
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulalively
considerable" means thai the incremental efl~cls of a
project m'e considerable v&en `.'iev,'ed m connection v,'ith
the efl~:cts of past prqiects, the cll~cls of other cun'cnt
projects, and the effects of probable I~.fluve I~rqjccls).
Does the project ha`.'e environmental cfl~:cts '``.'hich ','.'ill
cause substantial adverse ell~cts on lita~lan I',cings, either
directly or indirect(v?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None,
[]
[}
[]
I]
lI
[l
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
ix]
ix]
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final IZnvimnmcnml h'npacl Report,
3. South Coast Air Quality Mariagcn~em District CL:QA Air Qualit)' Handbook,
R:XSTAFFRPTX170pA96.PC 8/28/% klb 24
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 SC (Service Commercial).
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 a sales
and distribution facility surrounded by some currently developed 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
The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections. The project is an auto parts sales and distribution facility which is
consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Service
Commercial. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and
does not exceed the floor area ratio for Service Commercial, 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 Service Commercial. 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.
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.
R:XSTAFFRPTXlTOPA96.1'C S/28/96 klb 25
Geologic Problems
3.b,c,
f,h.
The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground
shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in
topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and
expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is
seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated 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 (including liquefaction), erosion. changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and 'expansive soils.
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. Modification to
topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant
since modifications will be consistent with the surrounding development.
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. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
3.d.
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.
3.e.
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,
3.i.
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.
Water
4.8.
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 bardscape and driveways. While
absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be
R:',STAFFRPT~I70PA96.PC 8~28/96 klb 26
4.c.
4.d,e.
4.f-h.
4.i.
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 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.
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. Due to the limited scale of the project,
the additional amount of drainage into Murrieta Creek will not considered
significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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.
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.
R:\STAFFRPT~ITOpA96.PC 8128/96 klb 27
Air Qualitv
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation. The project is below the threshold for
potentially significant air quality impact 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 nor sensitive receptors in proximity to the project. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5,c.
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. No other odors are anticipated as a result of this project.
Transportation/Circulation
6.a.
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however
it will add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute
less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes during the AM peak
hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Jefferson Avenue and
Sanborn Avenue. 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.
6.b.
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 auto parts sales and distribution facility in an area with
existing similar uses and planned Service Commercial uses. The project is
designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. 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.
R:XSTAFFRPT',ITOPA96.PC 8128196 klb '~8
6.6,
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 disturbed and graded. Currently,
there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered
species of plants, no native vegetation on 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.
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 and the wetland adjacent to the site will not be disturbed.
Reference response 7,a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
7.e.
The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or m_ igration 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
R:\STAFFRPT~ITOPA96.PC 81281% kltl
29
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.
8.c.
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a knowq 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.
9.8.
The project will result in a less than significant impact due to 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. While auto parts stores have
the potential to sell hazardous substances, they are regulated by both the Fire
Department and the Department of Environmental Health. Both entities have
reviewed the project. The applicant must receive clearance from the Department
of Environmental Health prior to any plan check submittal. The applicant must
receive clearance from the Fire Department prior to the issuance of a building
permit. 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 emergency response or emergency
evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
9.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. Reference response 9.a,
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.
R::STAFFRPTXlTOPA96.PC 8128196 klb 30
9.e.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable
brush, grass, or trees. The project is an auto parts sales and distribution facility
in an area of existing uses and proposed Service Commercial 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 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 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.
R:\STAFFRPT~ITOpA96.PC 8/28It)6 klb 3 ]
Utilities and Service Svstems
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.
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 Plan, 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:~,STAFFRPT~I70PA96.PC 8128196 klb 32
13.b.
The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project
is a auto parts sales and distribution facility in an area of existing uses and
proposed Service Commercial uses. The building is consistent with other designs
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.b,c.
The project will not have an impact on historical resources. No historic resources
exist at the site or are proximate to the site. 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.b,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
15oa,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:',STAFFRFi"XlTOpA96,PC 8/28/96 klh 33
ATTACHMENT N0.3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAFFRPTXI701'A96.pC 8/2g/96 klb 34
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA96-0170 (Development Plan)
Geologic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground 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.
BuiMing pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose i~cople to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for
approval.
Prk~r to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Sat~ty Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
exeavati.n, grading or fill.
Planting of slopes ctmsistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans tbr approval by the Department of Public
Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Deparm~ent of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT\I70PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 35
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 Monituring Party:
Erosion, changes in topugraphy or unstable soil conditions from
excavatiun, grading or fill.
Planting of un-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development
Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning
Deparlment fi~r approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Department.
Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking,
seismic gronnd thilure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or
earthqnake hazards.
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 permits and building permits.
Department of Pithlie Works and Building & Safety Department.
Exl~osure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking,
seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or
earthquake hazards.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit constrnction plans to the Building & Safety Department for
approval.
Pri~u' to the issuance of bnilding permits.
Bnilding & Salary Department
R:\STAFFRPT\I70PA96.PC 8~28~96 klb 36
Water
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The prt~ject will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns
and the rate and amount 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 the grading plans.
Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works tbr
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Deparm~ent of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
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 Comrol Board (SDRWQCB) tbr their review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (tbr SWPPP).
Transportation/Circulatio,~
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or Iraffic congestion.
Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements and traffic
inlpacts.
Post bond @ $2.00 per square thor, not to exceed $10,000.00 and execute
agreement fi~r payment of Public Facility Fee.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Deparm~ent of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPTX1701'A96.PC 8/28/96 klb 37
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Biological Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee.
Pay pro-rata share for traffic impacts (to be determined by the Director of
Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Department of Public Works.
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site.
Providc on-site parking spaces to accommodate the use.
Install on-site parking spaces.
Prit~r to tile 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 Mitigation Fee fi~r impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat.
Prior to the issuance ot'a grading permit.
Department tit' Public Works and Planning Department
R:\STAFFRPT',I70pA96.PC 81281% klh 3B
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
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:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental
services regarding fire protectk~n. The project will incrementally
increase the need fi~r fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair
share to the maintenance of service provision.
Payment nf Fire Mitigation Fees.
Pay current mitigation fi~es with the Riverside County Fire Department.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Department
A suhstantial et'~ct upon and a need liar new/altered schools. No
significant i~llpacts arc anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitt'clarion/~es with the Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Sat~ty Department and Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
A substantial ef/~ct upon and a need/br maintenance of public facilities,
including roads.
Payment of Public Facility Fee tk~r road improvements, traffic impacts,
and public thetittles.
Post bond @ $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00, and
execute agreement tin' payment of Public Facility Fee.
Pritn' to the issuance nf building permits.
Department {If Puhlic Works.
R:\STAFFRPT\I70PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 39
AESTHETICS
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 at'liter the Pak~mar Observatory.
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department/br approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Satiety Department.
R:\STAFFRPT',lTOPA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 40
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:XSTAFFRPTXI70PA96.PC 8128/96 klb 4 I
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0170 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
R:\STAFFRPT\170PA96.PC 8/19/96 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SC (SERVICE COMMERCIAL)
SITE
BP
BP
SP
BP
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - SC (SERVICE COMMERCIAL)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0170 (Development Plan, Fasl Track)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
R:\STAFFRPT\I70PA96.PC 8/19/96 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0170 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
EXHIBIT D SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
R:XSTAFFRPT'xI70PA96,PC 8/19/96 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
SANBORN AVENUE~*~
PLANTING LEGEND
~ ~..~
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0170 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
EXHIBIT E LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
I
R:\STAFFRFr\170PA96.PC 8/19/96 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
::_ ,:---::-!:
.I
SOUTH ELEVATIdN
WEST ELEVATION . NORTH ELEVATION
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0170 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
EXHIBIT F ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
R:\STAFFRFT\lTOPA96.PC 8/19/96 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
LETTERS RECEIVED
R:\STAFFRPT\I70PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 42
August 8, 1996
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Napa Auto Parts StoredNorth Jefferson Business Park
Dear Mr. Fagan:
I am writing to you to advise you that Bank of Commerce is aware of the plans to build a
retail building in our business park by Mr. Allan Orr where he will operate his Napa Auto
Parts Store.
We have reviewed his plan to include their Napa Auto corporate logo of a dark blue stripe
with gold pipeline and find it to be acceptable in design and suitable for this business park.
While the original developers saw this park to be principally industrial, it has evolved by
those most interested in it to be more retail in nature, and having built the first building in
the development, we in part set the pace for the retail nature of the developmere.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me by
calling me at (619) 536-4540, extension 332.
Sincerely,
/jSt/even D.fl/~"~~'
First Vice President
Branch Administrator
· Golden Tdangle OI6ce
4330 La Jolla ~llage Dnve
Suite 100
San D~egO, CA 92t~.-6201
{619) 45,5~261
Fax (619) 455-0363
· La Jotla Office
7877 Ivanhoe Avenue
La Jolla, CA 92037-45(~
(619) 551-8488
Fax (619) 551~206
· San O,ego Main Ofhce
600 West B~oadv,-ay
Suite 100
San O~e~o. CA 92101-33GZ
{619) 232-6213
Fax (619) 232-3124
· Temecula Office
27280 Jefferson Avenue
Suite 100
Temec~jla. CA92590-5609
San Diego, CA 92131-1018
(619) 578-6424
(800) 455-~472
Fax (619) 578-1287
CORPORATION
August 8, 1996
Mr. Matthew Fagen
Associate Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula CA 92590
Dear Mr. Fagen,
I am writing you today regarding the proposed building project by Mr. Allen Orr of NAPA Auto
Parts in the North Jefferson Business Park, of which my company Basics Etc. Corp is a property
owner and also located in the North Jefferson Business Park.
I am excited that Mr. Orr has selected this business p~rk to locate his long time Temecula
operation. I am led to believe there might be some concern as to the building colors which Mr.
Orr needs to paint his building in keeping with his Corporate image. As a representative for
Basics Etc. Corp I have no problem with the Blue and Gold/Yellow color scheme as long as it
does not imerfere with the North Jefferson Business Parks established CC&R's. In reading the
CC&R's of the association it does not seem to conflict with the CC&r's.
Basics fully supports Mr. Orr's building color scheme integrating the NAPA Blue & Gold/Yellow
color scheme as long as it meets the City of Temecula's requirements.
Sincerely, //~
~ent
41375 McCabe Court · Tgraecula, CA 92590 · P.O. Box 1149 Temecula, CA 92593 · 909.699.9997 FAX 909,699.9248
jThursday August 15, 1996 9:44~n -- Page 2I
88/15/96 21:~
989652~B37~ HERROh ,,UMIClNSOFF 62
COPY
NORTIt JEFFERSON BUSINF. SS PARK
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMrtTEE
30141 ANTELOPE ROAD, SUITE M
MENIFEE, CA 9Z584
(909) 672-4951
FAX: (909} 672-1373
August 15. 1996
Joan Kelse7
Professional Management
30141 Antelope Road, Suite M
Menifee, CA 92584
Re:
Napa Auto Parts
Parcel 10 of Parcel Map 23561-1
APN #910-020-023
Dear Joan:
As per your request. the Architectural Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary
Site Plan, Floor Plan. Exterior Elevations, Landscape Plan and Grading Plan dated
Augusl 14, 1996; and received by the Committee on August 14, 1996 for the above
referenced project.
Based on this review, the Commitlee is prepared at this time to grant preliminary
Architectural Review Committee Approval as per the followling conditions:
As per Page 8 of Exhibit "E", all driveway approaches shai| be constructed as per
the standard CC&R driveway approach details (Exhibit "D-5" of Exhibit "E").
As per Page 14 of Exhibit "E", any Association maintained landscaping and/or
irrigation disturbed as a result of the new driveway or walkway installation shall
be replaced "in like size and kind."
All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from street and
adjacent property view. Final acceptance of roof mouuted mechanical equipment
screening shall occur at the completion of the project. The Comn~ittee may
determine that additional screentug is required at flint time if roof mouuted
mechanical equip~nent units have no| been effectively screened h'om street or
adjacent property view.
Thursday August 15, 1996 9:44pm -- Page 31 '
g0115196 21:~ 't 9096~20~?:3 HERRO, ,UfiRH~OFF
Joan Kclscy
Professional Management
August 15, 1996
Naps Auto Part~
Parcel 10 of Parcel Map 23561-1
APN #910-020-023
Page 2
Landscape Plan has been reviewed and is acceptable, no rcvlslons Io the
Landscape Plan shall occur unless revisiozls have beest submitted to and approved
by file Committee.
Building Mounled Siguage has been subinitted astd is acceptable. No revisions to
Building Mounted Signage shall occtir tnuless revisions have been submitted to
and approved by tile Committee.
Building Mounted Signage approved as follows:
The Napa Auto Parts building has approxintately 2,300 s.f. of surface area
facing Sanborn Avenue and 3,425 s~f. of surface area facing "North" and
"South".
As per Page 23 of Exhibit "E," a maxisnuan of 10% of the building surface
area shall be allowed in building monnted signage area on each elevation.
Maximum signage letter height shall be 36".
b. The signage copy facing Sailborn Avem,e is cmnprised of the following:
l. 'T'ac Paris Store" - 27'-2" long x 25" high (56.5 ~.f.),
2. Naps logo - hexagonal Napa logo, 5' high x 6' wide (30 s.f.).
3. Naps logo - "underlixle", 70' long x 2' high (140 s.f.).
4. Total sig.age ~quarc footage - 226.5 s.f.
c. The signage copy facing "SouIll" is comprised of the following:
1. "The Parts Store' - 33' long x 30" high (82.5 s.f.).
2. Napa logo - hcxagomd Napa logo, 5' high x 6' wide (30 s.f.).
3. Naps logo - "u,dcrline", 56' lo,lg x 2' high (112 s.f.).
4. Tolal signage square footage - 224.5 s.f.
jThursday August 15, 1996 9:~4F~ -- Page
Z 9896528~73 HERRO, ,UHRHSOFF
Joan Kelsey
Professional Managcmeut
August 15, 1996
Re:
Napa Auto Parks
Parcel 10 of Parcel Map 23561-1
Alan #910-020~023
Page 3
11.
12.
d. The signage copy facing "North" is comprised of Ihe following:
1. Napa logo - hexagonal Napa logo, 5' high x 6' wide (30 s.f.).
Signage shall be comprised of individually spaced, internally illuminated
channel letters with the following standard Napa colors:
1. Faces
'The" - Red
"Paris Store" - Yellow
Logo - Hexagon - Yellow and Blue
Logo - "Underline" - Yellow
L
There shall be no exposed conduits, junctiou boxes, or electrical raceways
of any type.
No additional signage shall be installed ou this bnilding without first
obtaining Architectural Review Committee approval.
Monument Sign has nol been submitted at this time, complete Monument Sign
drawings shall be submitted to, and approved by the Commit.tee prior to any
Monument Sign inslallation.
Building exterior color schcn~e and malefinis have been submitted and are
acceptable, no revisions to the exterior color scheme or materials shall occur
unless revisions have been submined to and approved by the Committee.
l'here shall be no exposed roof drain downspouts on any street facing elevation.
No mechanical cqujpntent of any type is to be exposed on any wall surface of the
building.
Southern California Edison transformer shall not be located in any front yard
landscape setback area. Transformer location slmll be screened from both street
and adjacent property view.
Wrought iron gate and fence located on "Norlit" side of building shall be similar
to 'FedEx' gate a,d fence.
LThursday August 15, 1996 9:/,~pm -- Page
~ 989652037~ HERRO. ,U~RHSOFF
e5
3oan Kelsey
Professional Manage,ncnt
August 15, 1996
Re:
Napa Auto Parts
Parcel 10 of Parcel Map 23561-1
APN #910-020-023
Page 4
This submission has been reviewed and approved as to conformauce with the standards
of the Development Regulations coverlug this property. Our review was for the
purpos~ of checking conformity to those standards and it was not a review of the
technical adequacy of the proposed i~nprovcmenLs. Our approval of any plans or design
is not approval from the standpoint of struclural safety or conformance with any
building codes or other governmental requi,'emenLs. The Architectural Review
Committee or lbe members or designaled representalivcs thereof shall not be liable to
any person for damages or injury which might arise from the negligence or errors or
omissions of the preparer of this submission.
Plcasc remind the applicant that prior to the start of any construction, final approval by
the Committee is rcquired. Submittal of "finnr-cm~slructk~n documents is required to
obtain final Committee approval.
If you have any questions regarding II~e above items, please do not hesilate to contact
IBe.
Sincerely.
RPR:svh
ec: Alan Orr, Napa Auto Parts
AL,sU~62'12.
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 16, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0176 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No, PA96-0176;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No, PA96-0176; and
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA96-0176 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
FFF Enterprises
The Allen Group
To construct and operate a 77,582 corporate office and
warehouse facility for FFF Enterprises
Northeast corner of Ynez Road and County Center Drive
LI {Light Industrial)
North: LI (Light Industrial)
South: PI (Public Institutional)
East: PO {Professional Office)
West: SC {Service Commercial)"
Not requested
BP (Business Park)
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Office
Office
Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Total Site Area:
Building Footprint Area:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Hydroseeded Area (for future expansion):
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
6.05 acres gross/5.6 acres net
67,847 square feet (27.6%)
55,249 square feet (22.4%)
73,980 square feet (30%)
49,038 square feet (20%)
124 spaces
144 spaces
Thirty-one (31) feet
BACKGROUND
A pre-application meeting was held for this project on June 27, 1996. The application was
formally submitted to the Planning Department on August 6, 1996. A Development Review
Committee (DRC) meeting was held on August 15, 1996. The project was deemed complete
on August 22, 1996.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is the design, construction and operation of a corporate office and distribution
facility on 5.6 acres. The building will be thirty-one (31) feet high, with a footprint of 67,847
square feet. Total building square footage will be 77,582 square feet (67,697 - first floor and
9,885 - second floor). An area to the north of the building has been set aside for potential
future expansions to the project. The project is a Fast Track project and the grading plan and
building construction plans have been submitted and are currently being reviewed by staff.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The project will take access from both Ynez Road and County Center Drive. Vehicular
circulation will encircle the entire project. Parking is located in the front and at the sides of
the project. Loading facilities are on the east side of the building and have been adequately
screened from the public way and the adjacent development. An employee patio area will be
located at the southeasterly portion of the site. The rear portion of the site will hydroseeded
and irrigated for anticipated expansion to the business. Provisions have beerf made on the site
plan to allow for future parking generated from an expansion to the project. The site plan has
been over-parked by twenty (20) parking spaces. The additional parking spaces have been
included as a requirement of the CC&R's of the Winchester Highlands Business Park.
R:\STAFFRFr\I76PA96,pC 8/28/96 klb 2
Architecture
The building will house a corporate office and warehouse. The front of the building which is
mostly visible from the intersection of Ynez Road and County Center Drive, is highly articulated
through the use of glass and concrete (reference Attachment 4.F.). The remainder of the
building is concrete and has been articulated through the use of color and vertical and horizontal
score lines. The overall architecture is consistent with other buildings in the area.
Landscaping
Over twenty-two percent of the site has been landscaped. This is consistent with the
twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial) zone. Accent
trees are used in the front of the building and evergreen trees are used for screening
elements of the project. A great majority of the existing landscaping on the perimeter of
the site will be preserved. The City's Landscape Architect has reviewed the landscape plan
and finds it to be in compliance with City standards.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Existing zoning for the site is LI (Light Industrial). Office/distribution 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
Provisions have been made on the site plan to allow for future parking generated from an
expansion to the project. The site plan has been over-parked by twenty (20) parking
spaces. The additional parking spaces have been included as a requirement of the CC&R's
of the Winchester Highlands Business Park. 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 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient
Landscaping provisions.
R:\STAFFRPT\176PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 3
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general 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.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 16
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 34
Exhibits - Blue Page 41
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. Elevations
R:~STAFFRPT\176PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:\STAFFRFF\I76PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0176 TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A 77,582 SQUARE FOOT CORPORATE OFFICE
AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITY ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 5.6 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND COUNTY CENTER DRIVE
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-110-041
WHEREAS, The Allen Group filed Planning Application No. PA96-0176 in accordance
with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WI-IEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0176 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WItEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0176
on September 16, 1996, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA96-0176;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are tree and correct.
Section 2. Eixlaixlg~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA96-0176 makes the following findings, to wit:
A. 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
(Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety, and general 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.
R:\STAFFRPT\176PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 6
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA96~0176 to construct operate a 77,582 square foot corporate office
and distribution facility located at the northeast comer of Ynez Road and County Center Drive and
known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-110~041 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 16th day of September, 1996.
L'mda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of
September, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRFr\176PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 7
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT\I?6PA96,PC 8/28/96klb ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0176 {Development Plan, Fast Track)
Project Description: A Development Plan to construct and operate a 77,582 square
foot corporate office and distribution facility for FFF Enterprises
Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-110-041
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
(~78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the Cit~/to file the Notice of
Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section
21 I08(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).
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set
aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or
any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application
No. PA96-0176 (Development Plan, Fast Track). City shall promptly notify the
developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is
sought and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action.
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\I76PA96.PC 8128196 klb 9
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, approved
with Planning Application No. PA96-0176, or as amended by these conditions.
a. A minimum of one hundred twenty-four (144) parking spaces shall be provided.
b. A minimum of five (5) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
c. Six (6) Class I lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these
conditions.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F and Exhibit G (Color
Elevations), or as amended by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by
these conditions (color and material board).
Materials
Concrete (building base)
Concrete (building accents)
Metal (roll-up doors, doors)
Glass (base reflective)
Glass (accent reflective)
Metal (storefront)
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
8.
Colors
Frazee #8262W Peanut Shell
Frazee #8263 Deerfield
Frazee #8262W Peanut Shell
Guardian, 1/4" #SS-08 on Blue
Guardian 1/4" #CP-8 Pewter
Durnar Silver Paint Finish
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded
by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required
by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
10. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
11.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District ~hall be submitted
to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
Fees.
R:\STAFFRFr\I76PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 10
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 shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
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 Planning Manager. 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
19.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least
3 square feet in size.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to
guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Planning.
R:\STAFFRPT\176PA96.PC 8/28196 klb 11
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
22. 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.
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 comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disabled 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.
31. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
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 pertinent
plans 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.
R:\STAFFRPT\I?6PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 12
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 an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
34.
All grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency
with adjoining projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. Precise
Grading plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula myiars.
35.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
36.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
37.
A Precise Grading and Erosion Control 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.
38.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOD has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
39.
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.
Onsite curb and gutter shall be constructed per City of Temecula Standards Nos.
200 and 204.
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.
R;\STAFFRPT\I?6PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 13
40. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
41.
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.
42.
An Area Drainage Plan 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
43.
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.
44.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established
per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
45.
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 $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. The Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the
provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee
district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee
for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving his/her right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
46.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District for the future Ynez Road median
improvements in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
R:~STAFFRFr\I76PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 14
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
47.
The Developer shall construct all public and private improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
The following public improvements are required:
Street lights along Ynez Road and County Center Drive spaced at approximately
180 feet apart at specific locations approved by the Department of Public Works.
48.
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
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 County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated August 15, 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 August 8, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
52.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated August 28, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
R:\STAFFRPT\176PA96.PC 9/9196 klb 15
Ran
John F. He~igar
Phillip L Forbes
Linda M. Frsgoso
C. Michael Cowerr
Best, Best & Krleger
August 8, 1996
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
City of Temecula
Phmning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
Water Availability
Parcel 9 of Parcel Map 21361, APN 910-I 10-041
Planning Application No. PA96-0176
Dear Mr. Fagan:
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 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
w96~SB:=b206/F012/FEF
cc: Laurie Willlares, Engineering Services Supervisor
FROM
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: August 15, 1996
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
A : Matthew Fagan
PLOT PLAN NO. PA96-0176 - FAST TRACK
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA96-0176 - Fast Track
and has no objections.
2, PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, the following are required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts.
b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete
sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule,
a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uhiforrn Retail Food Facilities Law 2.
c)
If there are to be any haTardous materials, a clearance letter from the Department of
Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (358-5055) will be
required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.3.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.2.
· Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.1).
· Waste reduction management.
CH:dr
(909) 285-8980
cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Branch
Matthew Fagan
Planning Department
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
IDEC
August 28, 1996
.By
SUBJECT: PA96-0176 (FFF Warehouse) - Agency Case Transmittal
Dear Mr. Fagan:
We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which
describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below:
Our understanding is the proposed subject project will develop a
77,582 sq. ft. corporate office and distribution facility for FFF
Enterprises on 6.05 acres in Parcel 9 of PM 21361 (APN 910-110-
041). The subject project is located on the northeast corner of
Ynez Road and County Center Drive in the City of Temecula.
The subject project is within the District's sewer service
boundary. A matter of importance which must be understood is the
available service capabilities of the District's systems are
constantly changing due to the continuous development within the
District and the improvement of District facilities. Hence, the
service for the subject project will be dependent upon the
available capacity of the District's systems at the time service
agreements are made with the District.
DOMESTIC WATER
The subject project is outside of EMWD's water service area. Any
potable water service must be arranged with the Rancho California
Water District.
Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinto, California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet, CA
Operations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road, Perris, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177
Matthew Fagan
PA 96-0176
August 28, 1996
Page 2
SANITARY SEWER
The subject project is tributary to the District's Temecula Valley
Regional Water Reclamation Facility. An 8-inch sewer exists in
County Center Drive (SD-7243) and a 12-inch VCP sewer is in Ynez
Road (SD-6375). Either the 8-inch or 12-inch gravity sewer mains
are adequate to serve the subject project. However, the subject
project must be reviewed by the District's Source Control Division
to determine the need for grease traps, sand traps, sampling boxes
or other provisions.
RECLAIMED WATER
The project is outside of EMWD's water service area. Reclaimed
water usage must be arranged with Rancho California Water District.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Additions or improvements to off-site facilities are not required
to adequately serve the subject project. This transmittal serves
as the plan-of-service for this project. The project will be
processed through the Customer Service Department for determination
of appropriate fees and Source Control requirements. Tracking of
the project shall be coordinated through the "One-Stop" program by
Ms. Judith Conacher at (909) 766-1810, ext. 4409.
Thank you for soliciting our concerns and if you have any questions
regarding the above matter, please call me at (909) 766-1810.
Sincerely,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Mike Gow, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Customer Service Department
MAG/mag J:\WORDPROC\WP\NEW_BUSI.]]\GO~AtepaO]76.896
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:x, STAFFRPT\176PA96.PC 8/2~/96 klb 16
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
lo.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Planning Application No. PA96-0176 (Development Plan -
Fast Track)
City of Temecula, 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula~
CA 92590
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400
Northeast comer of Ynez Road and County Center Drive
FFF Enterprises, 27532 Cormnerce Center Drive,
Temecuta, CA 92590
BP (Business Park)
L1 (Light Industrial)
The design, construction and operation of a 77,582 square
foot corporate office and distribution facility for FFF
Enterprises
Offices to the east, vacant to the west, vacant to the north
and offices to the south
Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside
County Health DeparUnent, Temecula Police Deparunent, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho
California Water Disu-ict, Sou'hem California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company,
General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency
R:~STAFFRPT\176PA96.PC 8/28196 klb ]7
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, revolving 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
]IX] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality IX] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] 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 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.
Signature
Printed Name
Date
R:\STAFFRPT\I76PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb ], ~
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorpormed
Signifieam
Impact
NO
Impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source l, Figure 2-I, Page 2-17)
b. 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 I, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
d. Afi~ct agncultural resources or operations (e.g. impactsto
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(Source l, Figure 5~4, Page 5-17)
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
con~munity (including low-income or minofity 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 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?
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[]
Ix]
ix]
1]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
ix]
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
[1
[]
Ix]
ix]
[]
R:\STAFFRPT\176PA96.pC 8/28/96 klb 19
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Llnless
Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThan
Signi~canl
NO
Impact
g Subsidence of the land?
(Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68)
h. Expansive soils?
i. Unique geologic or physical features?
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a Changes in absorption rates, drainage panems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b. Exposureofpeopleorpropertytowaterrelatedhazards
such as flooding? (Source 2, Figure 13, Page 95 and
Source 2, Figure 30, Page 190 )
c. Dischargeintosurfacewatersorotheralterationofsurface
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 excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g. Altereddirectionorrateof~owofgroundwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
i. 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?
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
I]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
Ix]
[1
[x]
[x]
Ix]
[]
[]
[1
[]
Ix]
[1
Ix]
[]
[x]
[]
[1
ix]
[]
[1
[1
ix]
Ix]
[]
R:\STAFFRPTxI76PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 20
ISSUES AND SUPPORTiNG INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Signific~mt
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
d. Create objectionable odors7
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b. Hazards to saI~ty from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)7
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d. Insuflficient parking capacity. on-site or off-site?
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists7
£ Cortkqicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g bus turnouts, bicycle racks)7
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts7
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)7
b, Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)7
c Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oakforest,
coastal habitat,
d. Wetland habitat (e.g marsh, ripEan and vernal pool)?
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a Conflict with adopted ener~' oonservation plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner7
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
f]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
[]
R:\STAFFRPT\I76PA96.PC 8/28196 klb 21
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unles,~
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant
Impact
Impact
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 State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. Afiskofaccidentalexplosionorreleaseofhazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d. Exposureofpeopletoexistingsourcesofpotentialhealth
hazards?
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammable 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
senices in any of the following areas:
a, Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c, Schools'?
d. Maintenance ofpublicfacilities, including roads?
e. Other governmental services?
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
[l
I1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[1
Ix]
[1
Ix]
Ix]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
[]
ix]
[]
Ix]
[]
1]
[x]
[l
[]
[]
[1
[l
[1
ix]
R:\STAFFRPTH76PA96.PC 8/28/96klb 22
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
lmpacl
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
lncoq~orated
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems 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?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
{]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[I
[]
[1
[]
I]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
I]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
ix]
ix]
[x]
ix]
ix]
ix]
ix]
ix]
[x]
[]
ix]
Ix]
Ix']
[x]
ix]
[]
R:\STAFFRPT\176PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 23
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ]
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
tlxe range of a rare or endangered plant or arereal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history,
or prehistory?
b Does the project have the potential to achieve shorMerm, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCnmulatively
considerable" means that the meremental effects of a
prqiect 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).
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[xl
Ix1
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly9
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None.
[]
[]
[]
[xq
SOURCES
1. CibI of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
R:\STAFFRPTXI76PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 24
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) and the
zoning designation of LI (Light Industrial). 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.
1.6.
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community). The project is a sales
and distribution facility surrounded by some currently developed 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 Housina
2.8.
The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections. The project is a corporate office and distribution facility and is
consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of LI (Light
Industrial). Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does
not exceed the floor area ratio for Light Industrial, it wilJ 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 Light Industrial. 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.
site is vacant; therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant
anticipated as a result of this project.
The project
effects are
R:\STAFFRPT\I76PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 25
Geologic Problems
3.b,c,
f,h.
The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground
shaking, seismic ground failure and expansive soils, and will have a less than
significant to erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill. The project is located in Southern California, an area
which is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated
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 (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in
topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and
expansive soils. 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. Modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not
be considered significant since modifications will be consistent with the
surrounding development. 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. After mitigation measures are
performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.d.
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.
3.i.
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.
Water
4.a.
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 herdscape and driveways. While
absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be
R:\STAFFRPT\I?6PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 26
4.d,e.
4.f-h.
4.i.
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 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.
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. Due to the limited scale of the project,
the additional amount of drainage into Murrieta Creek will not considered
significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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.
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.
R:\STAFFRPTII76PA96.pC 8/28/96 klb 27
Air Qualitv
5.a.
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation. The project is below the threshold for
potentially significant air quality impact 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 nor sensitive receptors 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. No other odors are anticipated as a result of this project.
Transportation/Circulation
6.8.
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however
it will add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute
less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes during the AM peak
hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersection of Ynez Road and County
Center Drive. 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.
6.b.
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.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses. The project is a corporate office and distribution facility in an area with
existing similar uses and planned Business Park/Light Industrial uses. The project
is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. 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.
R:\STAFFRFT\I76PA96.PC 8/28196 klb 28
The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclista.
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.
Bioloaical Resources
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 disturbed and graded. Currently,
there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered
species of plants, no native vegetation on 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.
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.
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 and the wetland adjacent to the site will not be disturbed.
Reference response 7.a. 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 this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\I?6PA96.P~ 8/28/96klb 29
Energv 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.
8.c.
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 result in a less than significant impact due to 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. While the applicant may sell
or distribute hazardous substances, they are regulated by both the Fire
Department and the Department of Environmental Health. Both entities have
reviewed the project. The applicant must receive clearance from the Department
of Environmental Health prior to any plan check submittal. The applicant must
receive clearance from the Fire Department prior to the issuance of a building
permit. 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 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 al~ 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. Reference response 9.a.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\l?6PA96.pC 8128/96 klb 30
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.
9.e.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable
brush, grass, or trees. The project is an corporate office and distribution facility
in an area of existing uses and proposed Business Park/Light Industrial 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
lO.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.
10.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 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 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.
R:\STAFFRPT\l?6PA96.PC 8/28t96 klb 3 ]
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 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.
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 Plan, 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.
R:~STAFFRPT\I76PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 32
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.
13.b.
The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project
is a corporate office and distribution facility in an area of existing uses and
proposed Business Park/Light Industrial uses. The building is consistent with
other designs in the area and proposed landscaping wilt 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 disturb paleontological resources and will not have an impact on
historical resources. The site has been previously graded and resources would
have been disturbed at that time. No historic resources exist at the site or are
proximate to the site. 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.b,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:\STAFFRPT\176PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 34
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA96-0176 (Development Plan)
Geologic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground 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.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public
Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT\176PA96.PC 8/28/96 klh 35
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development
Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning
Deparhnent for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking,
seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or
earthquake hazards.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Departu~ent 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.
Party: Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone
Responsible Monitoring
Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking,
seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or
earthquake hazards.
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.
Party: Building & Safety Department
R:\STAFFRPT\I76PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 36
Water
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 amount 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 the grading plans.
Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
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.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
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 $10,000.00 and execute
agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT\176PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 37
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Biological Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
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 m the issuance of occupancy permits.
Department of Public Works.
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 Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
R:~STAFFRPT~I76PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 38
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
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:
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
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities,
including roads.
Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts,
and public facilities.
Post bond @ $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00, and
execute agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT\176PA96.PC 8/28/96 klb 39
AESTHETICS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Morfitoring Party:
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare
that could affect the Palomar Observatory.
Use lighting ~echniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to fiae Building and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Depar~nent.
R:\STAFFRPT~I76PA06.pC 8/28/96 klb 40
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT\176PA96.pC 8/28/96 klb 41
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE
~-- C, OUNT'r'
r__,,EENTEEF~ DR
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0176 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
EXmBIT A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
R:~STAFFRPT\176PA96,PC 8/23/96 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
SP
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
P
BP
7'
BP
BP
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0176 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
R:\STAFFRPT\I76PA96.PC 8/23/96 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0176 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
EXHIBIT D SITE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
R:\STAFFRPT\I76PA96.PC 8/23/96 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
\\
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0176 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
EXHIBIT E LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
R:\STAFFRPT\I76PA96.PC 8/23/96 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0176 (Development Plan, Fast Track)
EXHIBIT F ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
R:\STAFFRPT\I76PA96.PC 8123196 klb
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0176 (Development Plan. Fast Track)
EXHIBIT F ELEVATIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - SEPTEMBER 16, 1996
ITEM #8
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Comm'~
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
September 16, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0206 (Minor Change) - Modification to Condition
of Approval No. 29 of Planning Application No. PA96-0140 (Tentative Parcel
Map No. 24085) pertaining to restricted access on Diaz Road
Prepared by:
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
Make a finding that the proposed modification is consistent with the
impacts included in the previously adopted Negative Declaration for
Planning Application No. PA96o0140 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 24085);
and
ADOPT Resolution No. 96-__ approving PA96-0206, based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report.
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA96-0140 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 24085) was approved by the
Planning Commission at their August 19, 1996 meeting. Subsequent to the Planning
Commission's approval, Planning Application No. PA96-0190 (Zevo Golf) was submitted to the
Planning Department showing access to and from Diaz Road. Since this presented a conflict
with Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 24085, Planning Application No. PA96-0206 was submitted
to the Planning Department on August 23, 1996 requesting modification to Condition of
Approval No. 29 of TPM 24085 pertaining to restricted access on Diaz Road.
ANALYSIS
According to Section 2.2 of Ordinance No. 460 (Subdivision Ordinance), a Minor Change may
be used to alter or delete a condition of approval where the condition is no longer appropriate
or necessary. Section 3.3.A.6. (Street and Highway Definitions - Major Highway) states:
"Intersections with other streets or highways may be limited to approximately one-eighth mile
intervals" (660 feet). Condition of Approval No. 29 of Planning Application No. PA96-0140
required the applicant to "Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Winchester Road
and Diaz Road on the Parcel Map." Staff felt that this condition was applicable to the map
because a specific Development Plan had not been submitted at the time. Since a Development
Plan has now been submitted, Staff has reviewed the request for modification to the restriction
R:\STAFFRl'T\206PA96.pC 9/10/96 mf 1
of access to and from Diaz Road, and under the new circumstances, has determined that the
condition can be modified for the following reasons:
The project can be found to be consistent with Ordinance No. 460. Ordinance No. 460
allows flexibility for intersection spacing along Major Highways (the language states
"may be limited...".
A similar condition exists to the south of this project and Staff supported access to and
from Diaz Road.
The design of Planning Application No. PA96-0190 (Development Plan, Fast Track -Zevo
Golf) is superior for truck traffic with access to and from Diaz Road.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Planning Commission re-adopted a previous Negative Declaration and accompanying
mitigation measures for Planning Application No. PA96-0140 at their August 19, 1996 meeting.
Since the proposed Minor Change is insignificant, Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission make a finding that the proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified
in the previously adopted Negative Declaration.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is a request to modify Condition of Approval No. 29 of TPM 24085 pertaining to
restricted access on Diaz Road for Planning Application No. PA96-0140 (TPM 24085). Staff
has reviewed the request for modification to the restriction of access to and from Diaz Road
and has determined that the condition can be modified.
FINDINGS
The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is consistent
with the City's General Plan and is physically suitable for the type and density of
development, the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are
not likely to cause serious public health problems, the design of the proposed land
division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the
public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division
and the project as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site,
and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The findings
made for Planning Application No. PA96-0140 still apply to this project.
The proposed modification is consistent with the impacts included in the previously
adopted Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0140 (Tentative Parcel
Map No. 24085). The proposed Minor Change is an insignificant change to the project
approved by the Planning Commission at their August 19, 1996 meeting.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 3
R:\STAFFRPT\206PA96.PC 9/10/96 mf 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 96-
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA96-0206 (MINOR CHANGE) TO
REVISE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 29 OF
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0140 (TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 24085) ALLOWING ACCESS TO AND
FROM PARCEL 1 OF TPM 24085 GENERALLY LOCATED
NORTH OF AVENIDA DE VENTAS (ZEVO DRIVE) AND
WEST OF DIAZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 909-120-022
WHEREAS, Westside City 1, LLC fded Planning Application No. PA96-0206 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code and Riverside County
Subdivision Ordinance, which the City has adopted by reference;
WITEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0206 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WI-IEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0206
on September 16, 1996, at a duly noticed public heating as prescribed by law, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public heating, upon hearing and considering aH testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0206;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~ That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings, to wit:
1. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project
is consistent with the City's General Plan and is physically suitable for the type and density of
development, the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvenfents are not likely
to cause serious public health problems, the design of the proposed land division or the type of
improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through,
or use of, property within the proposext land division and the project as proposed, conforms to the
logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of
the community. The findings made for Planning Application No. PA96-0140 still apply to this
project.
R:\STAFFRPT\206PA96.PC 9/10/96 mf 4
2. The proposed modification is consistent with impacts included in the
previously adopted Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0140 (Tentative
Parcel Map No. 24085). The proposed Minor Change is not a significant change to the project
approved by the Planning Commission at their August 19, 1996 meeting.
Section 3. F. nvironmenta! Compliance. The Planning Commission re-adopted a previous
Negative Declaration and accompanying mitigation measures for Planning Application No. PA96-
0140 at their August 19, 1996 meeting. Since the proposed Minor Change is insignificant, the
Planning Commission f'mds that the proposed project is consistent with the impacts identified in
the previously adopted Negative Declaration.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 1996.
LindaFahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 16th day of
September, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:XSTAFFRPT\206PA96.PC 9/10/96 raf 5
ITEM#9
THI~ ITEM WILL BE DELIVERED
UNDER SEPARATE COVER
ITEM #10
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commis.~/
Debbie Ubnos e~,Planning Manager
DATE:
September 16, 1996
SUBJECT: Planning Application No. PA96-0157, Lucky Shopping Center/Paloma del Sol
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
Receive Report and Provide Direction and Comments to the
Applicant Regarding Site, Elevation and Landscape Plans
for a Proposed Commercial Shopping Center
In July of 1996, Pacific Development Group and The Castillo Company submitted an application
for the development of a 106,000 square foot commercial shopping center. The project is
located at the northeast corner of Highway 79 South and Margarita Road, within the Paloma
del Sol Specific Plan.
The project site is designated as a Village Center by the General Plan. The project also has a
Development Agreement that was approved prior to the adoption of the General Plan. As such,
the Village Center designation does not apply to this property at this time. However, the
property owner has submitted an application for an amendment to the Specific Plan. As part
of the amendment, staff will be recommending that the Development Agreement be amended
to apply the Village Center designation to this property. In anticipation of this requirement,
staff's comments regarding the project have been with the assumption that the project must
be consistent with the Village Center requirements.
Staff has had several meetings with the applicant, both prior and subsequent to the submission
of the formal application, regarding the design of the project. Staff primary concern is that the
site design may not be consistent Village Center Guidelines contained within the General Plan.
Thus, the applicant has requested a workshop with the Commission to receive informal input
and direction regarding the site, landscape &nd elevation plans, prior to preceding further with
the project.
Attachment:
1. Site Plan - Blue Page 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
SITE PLAN
R:~TAFFRFI~I57PA96.1'C 9110/96 klb 2
tt
~t
ITEM #11
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commissio
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
September 16, 1996
Design Guidelines
MEMORANDUM
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
Continue the Item to the September 30, 1996 Planning
Commission Meeting
This item was originally scheduled for the August 19, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting. At
that meeting, the Commission continued the item to September 16, 1996. Due to the length
of the September 16, 1996 agenda, staff recommends that this item be continued to
September 30, 1996.
R:\STAFFRPT\DESIGNGL.PC'2 9/10/96 cdr