The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About121696 PC AgendaREVISED AGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 1996, 6:00 PM City of Temecula Council Chambers 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula City of Temecula Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Fahey Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak and Websler A trial of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the COfnrnis~eA'S abo~t an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak** form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your r~me and address. For all other ageaxia items a "Request to Speak" form must be fled with the Planning Commission Secretary be=Fare Commission gets to that item. There is a tree (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Approval of Minutes November 18, 1996 Minutes 3. Director's Hearing Case Update PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: PA96-0333 (Development Agreement) Forest City Development, Inc. and LGA-7, Inc. Sm~hwest Southeast corner of Ynez Road and Winchester Road Development Agreement between Forest City Development, Inc., LGA-7 Inc. and the City of Temecula for a Regional Mall and Associated Retail Development on 179 acres Make a determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified and findings that a subsequent EIR is not required Matthew Fagan Recommend Approval Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA96-0291 (Development Plan) The Gorham Company Inc. North side of Rio Nedo, west of the intersection of Rio Nedo and Calle Empleado The design construction and operation of a 17,370 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing building on a 44,502 square foot parcel Mitigated Negative Declaration Matthew Fagan Approval Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: City-Wide Design Guidelines City of Temecula City-Wide The Guidelines will be used in the design, construction, review and approval of commercial, industrial and residential development in Temeculs~ They will be used to provide direction to persons in the development community with the minimum development standards in the City. Exempt Craig Ruiz Recommend Approval to the City Council CONTINUED FROM THE NOVEMBER 4, 1996 MEETING PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS Next meeting: January 6, 1997 - Regular Planning Commission Meeting. ADJOURNMENT R:\WIMBERVG\PLANCOIVfM~GENDAS~12-16-96.WPD 12/12/96 klb 2 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 1996 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, November 18, 1996, 6:05 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Co-Chairman Slaven presiding. PRESENT: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster ABSENT: Fahey Chairman Fahey was present at 6:12 P.M. Also present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Rubin D. Weiner, Principal Engineer Ron Parks, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Associate Planner Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz, Assistant Engineer Anna Bostre-Le, and Minute Clerk Pat Kelley. PUBLIC COMMF~NTS '2¢>-Chairman Slaven called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:07 P.M. There were no requests to COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey 2. Approval of Minutes September 30, 1996 Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to approve the minutes of September 30, 1996, with the following amendments: Page 2, 6th paragraph - change helpfully to helpful. R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\ll1896.PC 12/9/96 klb 1 PLANNING COMMISSION NOVF, MBFR 18, 19~ Page 3, 7th paragraph - Commissioner Miller asked to have the paragraph broken between his question and Mr. Gallaher's response. Page 9, 2nd paragraph - add ...not mentioned. The motion carded as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey October 7, 1996 Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to approve the minutes of October 7, 1996, with the following amendment: Page 6, 1st paragraph, 1st sentence ...planters with step outs... The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey October 21, 1996 Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to approve the minutes of October 21, 1996, as written. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey Director's Hearing Case Update Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske reported a Taco Bell Restaurant at Ynez Road and Winchester Road was approved since the Commission's November 4, 1996, meefmg. Amend the City's Development Code with respect to Fzlucational Institutes and Day Care Facilities in Industrial Areas in the City of Temecula Senior Planner Dave Hogan presented the staff report. R:\PIANCO~\MINUTES\1996\ll1896.PC 12/9/96 klb 2 ~ANNING COMMISSION NOV~',~[BF, R 18, 1996 Commissioner Webster asked why religious institutions with day care are not to be permitted in BP zones. Mr. Hogan replied the Development Code does not permit private day care centers in BP zones, therefore, other types of day care should not be permitrod. Schools are conditionally permitted due to the older age of the children. Commissioner Soltysiak stated it is his understanding the proposal will allow existing schools to continue, but not expand their facilities. Mr. Hogan replied that is correct; improvements within their existing area are permitted. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:20 P.M. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Suite L, Temecula, representing Coop Properties, stated the issue is a school/day care center' s proximity to a facility with an obnoxious use. Criteria as to what uses are onerous for the schools to be near should be developed while keeping the existing facilities as conditional use. He also stated due to the lateness of the notices sent to tenants and owners, it is not fair to make a decision at this time as this is an important issue to their ongoing operation. Commissioner Webster asked if Mr. Markham believed day care should be conditionally permitted in BP zones. Mr. Markham stated he does not see any problem with day care in BP zones. He explained LI zones are fairly well reswicted as far as uses and the uses that are of concern could be easily determined. He suggested restrict uses around specifics be restricted rather than in general. Max Harrison, 41975 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing Westside Business Center, owners of 95 % of the undevelolxxt Business Park area, stated there is not a day care facility in this area and working mothers having to fight traffic to get to the other side of town will be a hindrance. He stated a number of providers have asked about parcels suitable for day care in the LI areas. He stated his opposition to any change in the use of property. Chairman Fahey dosed the public comment section at 6:27 p.m. Commissioner Slaven stated day care centers provide a service in a heavily employment area and this proposal will hinder the growth of existing businesses. She noted her desire to hear from people directly affected and also what the City' s emergency coordinator has in the way of emergency plans. She stated it does not matter if day care is private or church-affiliated. Chairman Fahey asked staff to clarify the type of uses that could present a public hazard in LI and BP zones. Mr. Hogan stated any business that handles toxic materials; i.e., chemicals used for computers; fuels for welding; chemicals for electronics. Commissioner Slaven asked if staff was aware of any business that decided not to come to the area because permits could not be obtained due to a school in close proximity. Mr. Hogan replied he was not aware of any business not moving here because of the schools, but believes school location can be a factor. Air quality operation permits have limitations because schools are considered a sensitive receptor and an operation adjacent to a school could have trouble getting an emission permit. R:\PIANC(~\MINUTES\1996\ll1896.PC 12/9/96 klb 3 1/LANNING COMMISSION NOVF, MBER 18, 199~ It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to continue this item to the December 2, 1996 meeting, to keep the pubfie heating open, to notice owners and tenants of existing facilities with sufficient time for response, and to determine if the emergency coordinator has a plan for potential disasters. Commissioner Miller remarked notice should aim be given to undeveloped LI owners who will be significan~y impacted. Chairman Fahey stated she did not agree with continuing this item, believes notices were sent in sufficient time for response, and does not believe the emergency coordinator is going to impact the Commission' s decision. The motion failed as follows: AYES: 2 NOES: 3 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven, Soltysiak COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Webster COMMISSIONERS None Commissioner Soltysiak inquired about the probability of hazards becoming a major problem in our economic development and what size building triggered staff's sense of problems. Mr. Hogan replied he was unable to give a probability. Chairman Fahey stated size of a facility is not the issue, it is the activity and materials used in the business. It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adopt Resolution No. 96-Next recommending that the City Council approve an ordinance entitled "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Temecula Amending Chapter 17 of the Temecula Municipal Cede Regarding Minor Changes to the Commercial/Industrial Land Use Matrix." Commissioner Webster recommended religious institutions with day care and private day care centers be conditionally permitted in BP zones, and the Development Cede so amended. Commissioner Miller amended his motion to add religious institutions with day care and private day care centers be conditionally permitted in BP zones. City Attorney Rubin Weiner suggested deleting "ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CFfY COUNCIL OF THE TEMECULA" and the word "MINOR" from the title of the ordinance and in the text. Commissioner Slaven reiterated that the motion means the two schools and one day care center now located in a LI area cannot increase the size of their facilities or their services. Commissioner Websla replied they do not have to shut down their business, they just cannot increase their size, and the public safety risk is overwhelming. R:\PLANCO~\MINUTES\1996\111896.PC 12/9/96 klb 4 %ANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 18, 1996 Commissioner Soltysiak asked if an analysis on the probability of a toxic-type business being located in close proximity to the existing schools could be undertaken and the result determining whether those businesses could be grandfathered in and allowed to expand is possible. Ms. Ubnoske stated such an analysis and determination would be difficult. Commissioner Solty~slc questioned why the busirg~___~es_ are not allowed to expand since they already exist. Ms. Ubnoske replied ordinance structure and the City's definition of non-conforming uses does not permit any expansion. The motion carried as follows: AYE& 3 NOF~: 2 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Webster COMMISSIONERS: Slavon, Soltysiak COMMISSIONERS None 5. Planning Application PA96-0266 - Specislty Metals Industry Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the stuff report. Commissioner Miller asked where the two street lights are being relocated. Assistant Engineer Annie Bostre-Le stated they were moved five (5) feet away from the driveway. Commissioner Miller asked about the size of the Canary Island Date Palms. Mr. Fagan stated he believes they will be 15'. Commissioner Soltysiak had the following questions regarding the Conditions of Approval: No. 14 - is this a new condition. Mr. Fagan replied a, b, c, and d were added to clarify staff requirements. No. 39 - isn't there a cutoff of five acres. Ms. Bostre-Le r~plied with the site being 3.18 acres, a Notice of Intent is required to be filed for each plot plan. No. 42 - why require a drainage study in an area which already has the infrastructure. Ms. Bostre-Le stated they were making certain the runoff is dealt with by allowable standards. Commissioner Solty,qiak questioned ff curb outlets are standard for these type of facilities as the proposed Design Guidelines allow alternate means of draining. Principal Engineer Parks stated these are established standards, but if driveway draining is allowed by the Design Guidelines, standards will change. He noted, there is a safety hnTnrd with landscape water draining in driveways. Staff should relook at this and come back with a recommendation. -~mairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 7:05 P.M. R:\PLANCCI{4\HINUTES\1996\111896.PC 12/9/96 klb 5 PLANNING COMMISSION NOVI~,MRER lg, 199r Bernard tlaverly, 1701 S. Vineyard, Suite G, Ontario, architect for the project, stated the date palms are intended to be 25 to 30 feet high. Commissioner Webster asked why 5-gallon shrubs are being used and if vines are planned for the six foot ':::~.':=':.~gf.~all on the northwest corner. Mx. Havcrly replied the shrubs were for variation and texture as the landscaping theni~ is desert and no vines are planned. Paul Benevides, 30525 Greenbrook Place, Canyon I~lc% owner of Specialty Metals, stated he presently employs 15 people, but plans to expand within the next five (5) years. His company distributes metals - copper, brass, nickel and silver - sells to manufacturers, and also does light assembly. They are locating in Temecuia to enhance their ability to serve the San Diego mark=t. Bill Dendy, 41975 Winchester Road, Temeeula, stated be strongly encourages this type of industry in Temecula. Chairman Fahey closed the Public Comment section at 7:12 P.M. Commissioner Webster suggested eliminating the five (5)-gallon willow trees, keeping the mix of 15- gallon and 24" box trees even, and adding vines to cover northwest coroer retaining wall. It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adopt the Neg~ ~or~ Declaralion for Phnning Application No. PA96-0266; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA96-0266; and to adopt Resolution No. 96-Next recommending approval of Planning Application PA96-0266 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, modify the landscape plan with a mixture of 15-gallon and 24-inch box willow trees, and to close the public hearing. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster , COMMISSIONERS: None COMMESIONERS None Chairman Fabey called a recess at 7:15 P.M. The meeting was reconvened at 7:25 P.M. Planninff Application No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan - Paloma del SoD; Planning Application PA96-0107 (General Plan Amendment); Planning Application No. PA96-0108 Otevi.~xl Vesting Tentative Tract M~Ip No. 24184); and Planning Application No. 96-0114 (Revi,~.d Vesting Tentative Tract M~lp No. 24186) Associate Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. ~ Commissioner Webster asked why a determination of consistency is recommended rather than d addendure to the EIR as CEQA guidelines do not mention determination of consistency. Mr. Fagan replied staff determined that due to the decrease in the overall density of the project, no effect on the ~ANNING COMMISSION NOVF, MBFR 18, previous environmental analysis would occur; therefore an Addendum is not required. City Attorney Weiner stated an addendum usually addresses new impacts and with no change, it is not necessary to prepare additional environment documents. CEQA states when an addendum is or is not required and this project does not q, mlify as a change for which an addendure is required. Mr. Weiner suggested the last sentence of Section 3 be modified to read "The Commission hereby determines that the project is consistent with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified." for each resolution. Commissioner Miller asked what changes are proposed for Planning Areas 29A and B, and if the school district decides not to use 29B as a site and the developer uses it as residential, would an environmental document be required. Mr. Fagan answered a four (4) acre park is being added in those areas and an environment document would not be required if Planning Area 29B's usage is changed. Chairman Fahey complimented staff on their tables and the presentation. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 7:50 P.M. Batty Burnell, 3242 Halladay Street, Suite 100, Santa Ana, representing Newland Associates, stated the applicant was reducing commercial by ten (10) acres, and adding four (4) acres of park in the north area. The proposed park on the east side will be utilized as a private recreational facility. The applicant is in concurrence with the Conditions of Approval and would like to add the following language to Finding No. 4 of the Specific Plan Resolution. "...standards of development, as set forth in this section, the Applicant has..." Commissioner Miller asked about the existing park location and the existing plan for Planning Area 19. Mr. Bumell answered the park is currently located in Planning Area 12 and there are no specific design plans for 19, which is currently designated as a park or recreation area. Commissioner Webster mentioned on page 3-150 of Specific Amendment No. 5 for Planning Area 36, Figure 42 is mentioned in the first paragraph and Figure 23B, under Item C3 and he could not find them in the document. Mr. Burnell stated they are existing figures and are not in this document. Commissioner Soltysiak questioned the difference between primary and secondary connections as shown in Figure 58, linkage and gathering places exhibit. Mr. Burnell stated in terms of design, the primary areas will carry more traffic and are trail/walkway connections in residential areas. In commercial areas, they are sidewalks. Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 8:15 P.M. Commissioner Miller mentioned in the Uses Permitted Section, a golf course is referred to and asked if one is planned in Paloma del Sol. Mr. Burnell answered the Specific Plan was written in Riverside County originally and referred to Ordinance 348 and when rewritten, uses were not changed. No golf course is planned. R:\PLANCOl~I\MINUTES\1996\ll1896.pC 12/9/96 klb 7 PLANNING COMMISSION NOVN:MBER 18, 199~ ~ It was moved by Commissioner Shaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to make a Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified; to adopt Resolution No. 96-Next recommending approval of planning Application No. PA96-0107 (General Plan Amendment) as amended; to adopt Resolution No.96-Next recommending approval of Planning Appfication No. PA96-0106 (Zoning Amendment, Specific Plan) as mended; to adopt Resolution No. 96-Next recommending approval of Planning Application PA96-0108 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24184) as amended; and to adopt Resolution No.96-Next approving Planning Application No. PA96-0114 (Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 24186) as amended based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report subject to the attached Conditions of Approval as amended and to close the public hearing. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS None Planning Application No. PA96-0157 (Development Plan) and PA96-0158 (Tentative Parcel Map) Lucky Shopping Center Assistant Planner, Craig Ruiz, presented staff report. Commissioner Webster questioned if the two handicap parking stalls, located in the cast side compact car area, had sufficient length. Mr. Ruiz stated all handicap stalls must be in compliance with the handicap standard and there is adequate length in that area. Commissioner Miller questioned configuration of Parcel 4 and why it reaches to Margarita Road and if the Commission is appreving the monument signs shown on the Working Site Plan. Mr. Ruiz stated the applicant will answer those questions. Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 8:20 P.M. David Powell, 1 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, representing the applicant Pacific Development Group, stated they were comfortable with staff's report and the Conditions of Approval. In response to Commissioner Miller's question, he stated each parcel requires legal frontage on a public street and that flag lot gives an interior building it's legal access to Margarita Road. On the issue of signs, there will be one center identification sign on each street, one monument sign for the pad building fronting on Hwy 79; pad building westerly on Margarita Road shall have its own single tenant identification sign. There will be a coreer sign identifying the entire development. Commissioner Webster suggested aligning the interior driveways so they are more in line with each othe, Mr. Powell replied both north/south directions could be stop signed with the east/west directions fi flow. R:\PLANCOl~4\MINUTES\1996\ll1896.PC 12/9/96 klb 8 %ANNING COMMISSION NOVEM!iRR 18, 199~ Commissioner Webster asked if there were parking spaces outside the landscape buffer along Margarita Road. Mr. Powell stated parking spaces are outside and the minimum setbacks on both streets is met. Kareem Ali, representing American Stores, stated liquor sales provide a convenience to the community and it would create a hardship for Lucky and SawOn not to be able to sell liquor products. Chairman Fahey closed the public comment section at 8:33 P.M. Commissioner Miller commented he liked the interior driveway design as the area would not become a raceway. Commissioner Slaven agreed with Commissioner Miller and added aligning drives is not in the best safety interest because experience has proven the public does not stop at stop signs and this configuration will make them slow down. Principal Engineer Parks stated it makes more sense not to align the driveways because there are different uses on both sides of the corridor. Chairman Fahey suggested staff look at the issue with the final plans. Commissioner Slaven stated it is appropriate to have liquor sales at these types of businesses, plus there is a lack of liquor-selling establishments in the area and Highway 79 poses a geographical boundary. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to adopt the Negative Declaration for PA96-0157, Development Plan, and PA96-0158, Tentative Parcel Map 28384; to adopt Resolution No. 96-Next approving PA96-0157, Development Plan; and Resolution No. 96-Next approving PA96-0158, Tentative Parcel Map No. 28384, based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; to approve Planning Applications No. PA96-0157, Development Plan and PA96- 0158, Tentative Parcel Map No. 28384, subject to their attached amended Conditions of Approval; to make a finding of public convenience for Lucky Supermarket and SawOn Drug Store; and to close the public hearing. Mr. Weiner recommended the following changes for the resolution pertaining to PA96-0158: B. 1. Add "...division and the design and improvement of the land division is consistent...November 9, 1993, and the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan." B.5. Delete the last sentence. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. add The site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type and density of the development and the design of the proposed land division or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious health problems. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS None R:\PLANCOPM\MINUTES\1996\ll1896.PC 12/9/96 klb 9 PLANNING COMMtqSION NOVI~MBRR 18, 199( PLANNING MANAGER~S REPORT Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske reported there have been two meetings with the new sign comment committee and it is planned to bring the issue back to the Commission in January 1997. Staff is working on a subdivision ordinance. PIANNTNG COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Webster asked about the Public Hearing Notice posted at Solaria Way and Margarita Road. Ms. Ubnoske stated an apartment complex with many recreational arechilies is proposed. A pre-notice meeting is being held Tuesday, November 19, 1996 at 6:00 P.M., at the Temecula City Hall for surrounding property owners. Commissioner Slaven asked when the signal at Solana Way and Margarita is to be in operation. Ms. Bostre-Le replied the interim signal is expected to be operational by February 1997. Commissioner Soltysiak inquired about the status of the Development Impact Fee. Ms. Ubnoske answered staff is continuing to receive input from the development community. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried. The next meeting will be held December 2, 1996, at 6:00 P.M. at the Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Linda Fahey, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\PLANCO~4\MINUTES\1996\ll1896.PC 12/9/96 klb 10 ITEM #3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager December 16, 1996 Director' s Hearing Case Update Following are the Planning Director Agenda items for November, 1996. Date Case No. Proposal Applicant November 7 PA96-0199 Constract a 50 foot high PLANCOMM, Inc. wireless communication antenna November 14 PA96-0168 Expansion to a cocktail Pat Story lounge which was rebuilt after a fire destroyed the building November 21 PA96-0279 Tenant improvements to an LA Cellular Telephone existing three story building Co. (Rancon building) Action Approved Approved Approved Attach ments: 1. Action Agenda - Blue Page 2 R:\DIItHEAR\M~,MO\6-3-96.DH 12/6/96 Idb ATTACHIVII~.NT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDA ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR°S HEARING REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 1996 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink aRequest to Speak" form should be filled out and fried with the Senior Planner. When you are called to spea~, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fried with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HFARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposfl: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA96-0199 (Conditional Use Permit) PLANCOMM, Inc. At the existing Rlmcho California Water District tank site located east of the future extension of Meadows Parkway (north of Raneho California Road) Construction of a fifty (50) foot high wireless communication antenna, with associated ground mourned equipment boxes and fencing Mitigated Negative Declaration Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner Approval AlPROVED ADJOURNI~ENT R:XDIRHEARXAGENDAHI-7-96AGN 1118196 Lib ACTION AGE~DA TEMECULA DIRLCTOR'S HEARING REGL~AR bin~TING NOVEMBER 14, 1996 1:30 PM TEblECULA CITY KALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Saied Naaseh, Senior Planner PUBLIC COlV!I~W~NTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so mereben of the public can address m the Senior Planner on irems that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink *Request to Speak' form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and stnte your name and address. For all other agenda i~ems a "Request to Speak" form must be fried with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. Case No: Applicant: Location: Propose: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recomraendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA96-0168 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) Pat Story West side of Jefferson Avenue, north of the intersection of Jefferson Avenue and Via Montezuma (2772S Jefferson Avenue) Expansion m a cocktail lotrage which was rebuilt after a fire desl~oyed the building it was located in Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner Approval APPROVED ADJOURNMENT ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTORtS HEARING REGULAR bl!~J~-TING NOVEMBER 21, 1996 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on ilems that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and fried with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fried with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant; Location: Proposah Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA96-0279 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) LA Cellular Telephone Company 27740 Iefferson Avenue (Rancon Building) Tenant improvements to an existing 3-stow building to construct an unmanned substation, consisting of a 336 square foot interior eqm'pment room and 15 foot high exterior fiberglass screening around roof-mounted cellular antennas. Categorical Exemption Carole Donahoe Approval APPROVED R:~DIRHEAR'xAQENDAHI-Zl-9~.AGN 11;21/96 ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 1996 Planning Application No. PA96-0333 A Development Agreement between Forest City Development, Inc., LGA-7 Inc. and the City of Temecula for a Regional Mall and Associated Retail Development on 179 Acres Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ~,DOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0333 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: Forest City Development, Inc. and LGA-7, Inc. REPRESENTATIVE: Same PROPOSAL: A Request for Approval of a Development Agreement between Forest City Development, Inc., LGA-7 Inc. and the City of Temecula for a Regional Mall and Associated Retail Development on 179 acres LOCATION: East of Ynez Road, south of Winchester Road, West of Margarita Road and north of the proposed Overland Road extension EXISTING ZONING: SP (Specific Plan) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: CC (Community Commercial) BP (Business Park) SP (Specific Plan - Campos Verdes) and LM (Low- Medium Density Residential) CC (Community Commercial) and LI (Light Industrial) PROPOSED ZONING: N/A R:\STAFFRPT~33PA96.PC1 12/11/96 mf ] GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (Community Commercial), P (Public/Institutional Facilities) and O (Professional Office) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Commercial Development/Vacant Vacant Vacant Commercial Development/Manufacturing & Office PROJECT STATISTICS Number of Acres: One hundred seventy-nine (179) BACKGROUND The project was submitted on November 26, 1996. A public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was mailed on November 27, 1996. This notice described the project as being on 120 acres when in fact the acreage included an additional 59 acres for a total of 179. An amended public hearing notice was mailed on December 4, 1996 to include the additional 59 acres in the Development Agreement. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a Development Agreement between Forest City Development, Inc., LGA-7 Inc. and the City of Temecula for a Regional Mall and Associated Retail Development on 179 acres. ANALYSIS The Development Agreement (Agreement) has been drafted by the City Attorney and reviewed by the other parties. Staff has reviewed the provisions contained within the Agreement for consistency with the General Plan and Specific Plan No. 263. Two particular Sections of the Agreement, Section 6 (Development Standards for the Property; Applicable Rules) and Section 7 (Regional Public Improvements) are discussed below. Section 6. Development Standards for the Property: AoDlicable Rules This Section discusses the applicable development standards and restrictions governing the use and development of the project. Applicable ordinances and regulations include: The City's General Plan (as it exists on the Effective Date of the Agreement); Specific Plan No. 263 (Regional Center Specific Plan); The Mitigation Monitoring Program for Environmental Impact Report No. 340; The City's Development Code (as it exists on the Effective Date of the Agreement); Portions of Ordinance No. 348 (Zoning), not superseded by the Development Code; Ordinance No. 460 (Subdivision Ordinance); Uniform Building Code R:\STAFFKFFL333PA96.PCI 12/11/96nd 2 Parking, lighting, payment of Development Mitigation Fees ($2.00/sq, ft. of gross leasable building area -except the department store anchors), plan check and inspection fees are also discussed in this Section. This Section also contains provisions entitling the developer to install the major site identity sign for the property along the freeway as described in the Specific Plan allowing a sign up to a maximum ninety-four (94) feet in height, and five hundred (500) square feet of sign area. The sign shall not contain changeable messages. The location, size and design of the sign shall be subject to Development Plan approval and all applicable governmental permit requirements. Section 7. Regional Public ImDrovements This Section of the Agreement discusses the nature of the proposed Regional Public Improvements ("Improvements"), identification of the parties responsible for designing, constructing, installing and maintaining the Improvements and timing for the completion of the Improvements. According to this Section of the Agreement, the City shall design, construct, install and maintain at no cost or expense to the Developer the following improvements: Perimeter Road improvements to include: · Winchester Road improvements. · Ynez Road improvements. Margarita Road improvements - Winchester Road to Solaria Way. · Overland Drive connection between Ynez Road and Margarita Road. The completion of the overcrossing of the I-15 Freeway from Ynez to Jefferson at Overland Road ("Overland Overpass") in accordance with existing Community Facilities District 88-12. Condition of Approval No. 29 of Specific Plan No. 263 specifies the timing of this improvement. Construct new or remodel existing traffic signals. Underground overhead power and communications lines on the south side of Winchester Road from Ynez Road to Margarita Road. Construct regional storm drainage facilities. Timing for completion of the improvements is listed below: · The City shall award contracts for the improvements (other than the Overland Overpass) prior to the final approval of the Development Plan for the Mall Site of the property. The City shall have approved plans and specifications and shall have advertised the Notice Inviting Bids for the construction of the improvements (other than the Overland Overpass) prior to the commencement of the major grading of the property. The City shall begin and diligently pursue to completion the improvements (other than the Overland Overpass) prior to the opening of the Mall portion of the project. · The City shall use its reasonable best efforts to cause the commencement of construction of the Overland Overpass within thirty-six (36) months following the opening of the Mall. The majority of the regional infrastructure improvements have been identified though the City of Temecula Capital Improvement Program (Fiscal Years 1997-2001). Other improvements have been identified and will be funded through Development Impact Fees that will be collected as new development occurs. R:\STAFFREl~33PA96.1'C1 12/12/96mf 3 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION This project is consistent with the City's General Plan since the General Plan currently designates the site as Community Commercial, Professional Office and Public/Institutional Facilities and the Development Agreement is consistent with this designation. This project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 263, since the development project which is implemented by this Development Agreement meets all the requirements of this Specific Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Environmental Impact Report No. 340 was prepared for Specific Plan No. 263 and was certified by the City of Temecula City Council in July, 1993. An addendure for the project was adopted by the City Council in 1994. It has been two (2) years since the environmental analysis was performed for this project. Based upon this information, it is Staff's opinion that due to the scope of the proposed Development Agreement, there will be no effect on the previous analysis. According to Section 21166 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report is required for the project unless one or more of the following events occurs: substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the EIR; substantial changes occur with respect to circumstance under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the EIR; or, new information, which was not known at the time of the EIR was certified and complete becomes available. None of these situations have occurred; therefore, no further environmental analysis is required. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is a Development Agreement between Forest City Development, Inc., LGA-7 Inc. and the City of Temecula for a Regional Mall and Associated Retail Development on 179 acres. The Development Agreement (Agreement) was been drafted by the City Attorney and reviewed by the other parties. Staff has reviewed the provisions contained within the Agreement for consistency with the General Plan and Specific Plan No, 263. Because the project is consistent with Specific Plan No. 263, Environmental Impact Report No. 340 (and the EIR Addendum), no further environmental analysis for the is required. Attachments: PC Resolution No. 96° - Blue Page 5 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 12 Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 14 Proposed Development Agreement - Blue Page 35 Exhibits - Blue Page 36 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C. Zoning Map R:\STAFF?d~F, 333PA96PCl 12/11/96mf -4. ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- R:\STAFFRPT~33$PA96.PC1 12/11/96mf 5 RESOLUTION NO. 96-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMI~IENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IT APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT INC., AND LGA-7, INC., FOR APPROXIMATELY 179 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND YNEZ ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0333) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds determines, and declares as follows: a. Section 65864 et ~1. of the Government Code of the State of California and Temecula City Resolution No. 91-52 authorize the execution of development agreements establishing and maintaining requirements applicable to the development of real property; b. In accordance with the procedure specified in said statutes and Resolution, Forest City Development, Inc. ("Developer") and LGA-7, Inc. ("Owner") have jointly filed with the City of Temecula an application for a Development Agreement ("Development Agreement") for approximately 179 acres located at the southeast corner of Winchester Road and Ynez Road ("Property") for a regional mall and retail commercial uses consistent with Specific Plan No. 263, which application has been reviewed and accepted for filing by the Community Development Director; c. Notice of the City's intention to consider adoption of the Development Agreement and to consider the findings under the California Environmental Quality Act that a Supplemental EIR or Subsequent EIR is not required has been duly given in the form and manner require by law for both the public hearing before the Planning Commission and the public hearing before the City Council; (1) Notice of the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council was published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days before the public hearings, and mailed or delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the hearings to the project applicants 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; (2) Notice of the public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council included the date, time, and place of the public hearing, the identity of the hearing R:\STAFFRl~'B333PA96.PCI 12/11/96mf 6 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 notice of the need to exhaust administrative remedies; d. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Development Agreement on December 16, 1996 at which time the Planning Commission heard and considered all of the written material and oral comments presented to it on the proposed environmental findings and the proposed Development Agreement; Section 2. The Planning Commission hereby further finds and determines that the Project has been the subject of extensive prior environmental review: a. On July 13, 1993, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 93-57 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 340 WITH ADDENDUM, ADOPTION OF THE STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF YNEZ AND WINCI-IF_STER ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO(S) 910-130-046, 047; 921-090-001,002, 003, 004, 005, AND 006," certifying the Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 263 and Zone Change 5589 for the Property. b. Additionally, on October 11, 1994, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Resolution No. 94-100 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE ADDENDUM TO THE FEIR NO. 340; TO ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO FEIR NO. 349 INCLUDING A NEW MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND DETERMINING NO ADDITIONAL IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF CHANGING THE CIRCULATION MITIGATION MEASURES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND WINCHESTER ROAD." The Council found at this time that the proposed specific plan and zone change did not change any of the impacts identified in FEIR No. 340, none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR had occurred, only minor technical changes or additions were necessary to make FEIR No. 340 adequate under CEQA, and the changes to the EIR by the Addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. c. The Staff of the Planning Department has prepared an Initial Study of Environmental Impact, dated December 6, 1996 analyzing the proposed Development Agreement and the prior environmental actions on the Project, which Initial Study is incorporated herein by this reference. d, The proposed Development Agreement incorporates the provisions of the City's General Plan, Specific Plan 253, the current zoning regulations for the Property, the Mitigation Plan of Environmental Impact Report No. 340 and such other ordinances, rules, R:~STAFFRFI~33PA96.PC1 12/11/96nd 7 regulations and official policies governing permitted uses, density, design, improvement, development fees, and construction standards applicable to the Property on the effective date of the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement makes minor adjustments to the procedures for Planning Commission determination of adequate parking spaces, the procedures for approval by the Director of lighting for the Project, allows for a freeway identification sign for the Project, all as provided for by the Specific Plan, and provides for allocation between the City and Developer of responsibility for construction of the off-site improvements which are required for the Project. All of the provisions of the proposed Development Agreement which might affect the environment were discussed and analyzed in FEIR 340. e. Therefore, no further environmental review is required for the Amendment unless required by 14 Cat. Admin. Code Sections 15161 or 15163. Section 3. Based on the evidence in the record before it, and after careful consideration of the evidence, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that neither a Subsequent EIR a Supplemental EIR, nor further environmental review is required for the Development Agreement pursuant to Public Resources Cede Section 21166, 14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 15162 or 15163, based on the following findings of the Planning Commission: a. The elements of the Project as described in the Development Agreement were contemplated and fully and properly analyzed in the EIR certified and approved by the City Council on July 13, 1993 and the Addendure thereto approved on October 11, 1994 for the approval of Specific Plan 263 and Zone Change 5589; b. There have been no subsequent changes to the Project since October 11, 1994 which would require major revisions of the previous FEIR and Addendum due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. c. Substantial changes have not occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR and Addendure due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. d. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that the Project might have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR and Addendure. e. There is no new information since the certification of the previous FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that significant effects previously examined might be substantially more severe than shown in the FEIR and Addendum. R:\STAFFRPT~333PA96.PCI I2/II/96mf 8 f. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR and Addendum which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project. g. There is no new information since the certification of the FEIR and Addendure which would show or tend to show that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR and Addendum would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Section 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula further finds, determines and declares that: 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: ( 1 ) The Development Agreement makes reasonable provision for the use of the Property for commercial development consistent with the General Plan's land use designation of Community Commercial, Professional Office and Public/Institutional Facilities for the Property which provide for commercial development; (2) The Development Agreement and development on the Property will provide for the creation of jobs within the City, enhance the balance of housing and jobs within the City as provided in the Growth Management/Public Facility, Land Use, and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan; b. The Development Agreement is consistent with Specific Plan 263 in which the Property is located in that: (1) The Development Agreement provides for commercial development pursuant to and in conformance with the terms of Specific Plan 263; (2) The specific land uses proposed for the Project as set forth in the Development Agreement are specifically allowed by Specific Plan No. 263; (3) The Development Agreement provides for the actual construction of the regional public improvements by the City as described in Specific Plan 263; (4) The Applicable Rules set forth in the Development Agreement do not change the provisions of the Specific Plan, but clarifies the uses to be allowed and standards to be imposed where the Specific Plan provides for alternatives; c. The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice because it makes reasonable provision for a balance of land uses compatible with the remainder of the City; R:\STAFFRFrB33PA96.PC1 12/11/96mf 9 d. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to, and in fact enhances, the health, safety, or general welfare because it provides adequate assurances for the protection thereof through the implementation of the Applicable Rules; e. The Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council to approve of the Development Agreement is based upon evidence and findings of the Planning Commission and the evidence presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission on the Development Agreement; f. The following benefits, among others, will accrue to the people of the City of Temecula from the Development Agreement: (1) Generation of municipal revenue; (2) Construction of needed 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 and providing retail development necessary to serve the community; and (5) Payment of Public Facility Fees. Section 5. The Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that it make the environmental findings described herein and approve a Development Agreement between the City of Temecula, Forest City Development Inc., and LGA-7, Inc., (Planning Application No. PA 96-0333). Section 6. The Secretary shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. R:\STAFFRPTL333PA96.1>CI 12/11/96mf Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula on ,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 day of ,199__ by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COIVIMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretaxy R:\STAFFRFI~33pA96.rCI 12/11/96mf 11 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFKPTX333PA96.PC1 12/11/96mf 12 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA96-0333 (Development Agreement) Project Descrip~on: A Development Agreement between Forest City Development, Inc., LGA-7 Inc. and the City of Temecula for a Regional Mall end Associated Retail Development on 179 Acres 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 Exemption required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15062. 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. 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. PA96-0130 (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:\STAFFRPT~333PA96.PCI 12/11/96mf ],3 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\STAFFRPT~333PA96.PCZ 12/11/96mf CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist , Project Title: Planning Application No. PA96-0333 (Development Agreement) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temeeula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Person and Phone Number: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 Project Location: East of Ynez Road, south of Winchester Road, west of Margarita Road and north of the proposed Overland Road extension Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Forest City Development, Inc. 949 S. Hope Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 92504 LGA-7, Inc. 9601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 General Plan Designation: CC (Community Commercial), P (Public/Institutional Facilities) and O (Professional Office) Zoning: SP (Specific Plan - Regional Center) Description of Project: ADevelopment Agreement between Forest City Development, Inc., LGA-7 Inc. and the City of Temecula for a Regional Mall and Associated Retail Development on approximately 179 Acres. The approximately 179 acre site which the Development Agreement will cover constitutes portions of Planning Area No. 1 and Planning Area No. 2 of the Regional Center Specific Plan. The Specific Plan was adopted in October, 1994. Under the Plan, Planning Areas No. 1 and 2 are designated for up to 1,673,000 square feet of retail floor space. The entire Specific Plan contains three (3) Planning Areas on 201.3 acres. The Specific Plan would permit retail, commerial, office, institutional, residential and hotel uses on the property. The proposed Development Agreement provides for future development in accordance with the Applicable Rules which include the General Plan, Specific Plan No. 263, existing zoning ordinance and minor procedural clarifications. Development would be required to comply with the existing binding regulations at the time of development. Currently, the City does not have an adopted development impact fee. The Development Agreement would set the fee at $2.00 per square foot of gross leasable building area. The Development Agreement allocates responsibility for construction of regional public improvements between the City and the R:~STAFFRPTX333PA96.t~CI 12/11/96mf 15 10. Developer. The term of the Development Agreement would be ten (10) years from its effective date. The EIR for the Specific Plan was certified in July, 1993. An Addendum to the Eli( was adopted in October, 1994. The 1993 EIR indicated that even after implementing the proposed mitigations, several significant impacts will remain. The remaining significant impacts will be to Noise, Climate and Air Quality, and Agriculture. Several other cumulatively significant impacts will occur if the other proposed Specific Plans for the region, Specific Plan No. 1 (Campos Verdes) and Specific Plan No. 255 (Winchester Hills), are developed. These additional areas of significant impact will be Seismic Safety, Flooding, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation and Traffic, Fire Services, Sheriff Services, Schools, Utilities and Libraries. As part of the certification of the EIR in 1993, the City Council had to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations detailing why the project was approved in light of the unavoidable environmental effects. The 1994 EIR Addendum incorporated technical analysis (in the Areas oftraffle/circulation and drainage/flooding) into the Final EIR and integrated additional/revised mitigation measures into the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Under CalifomiaPublic Resources Code Section 21166 and Section 15162 if the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, no additional EIR is required unless additional impacts not previously considered, or substantial increases in the severity of impacts, may result from: substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, or new information that could not have been known at the time the EIR was prepared. This Initial Environmental Study is tiered from the 1993 EIR and the 1994 Addendum for the Specific Plan and examines the question of whether any impacts beyond those analyzed in the 1993 EIR and 1994 EIR Addendum, would result from the proposed Development Agreement, changes in circumstances, or new information. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant to the south and east Palm Plaza (Commercial Center) and ACS (manufacturing and office) to the west Doctor's Medical Plaza (medical offices), Costco Center (Commercial Center ) and vacant to the north. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. R:\STAFFRFI~333PA96.PC1 12/11/96mf 16 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 [ ] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services [ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance [X] None DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, that none of the conditions described in Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; therefore, the previous analysis performed under EIR No. 340 (certified July, 1993) and the EIR Addendum (adopted October, 1994) adequately addresses all impacts from this project. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission and the City Council Make a Determination of Consistency With a Project for Which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Previously Certified and Findings that a Subsequent EIR is not required. R:\STAFPRFl~33PA96.PCI 12/ll/~6mf 17 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Signific, ant 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? [ ] 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? [ ] d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? [ ] e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement ofan established commumty (including low-income or minority community)? [ ] 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? [ ] b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? [ ] c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? [ ] 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result In or expose people to potential impacts InvolvIng? a. Faultrupture? [ ] 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 from excavation, grading or fill? [ ] g. Subsidence ofthe land? [ ] h. Expansive soils? [ ] I. Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] sisnm,~t Unl~.s In~'porat~d [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [x] R:XSTAFFRPT~33PA96.FCI 12/11/96nff 18 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Signiticant 8ig~ifiant NO 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface rimoff? b. Exposureofpeopleorpropertytowaterrelatedhazards such as flooding? c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of sufface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the mount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change m the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquffer 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 polhitants? c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffxc congestion? b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [3 [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [l [1 [] [1 [] [] R:XSTAFFRFB333PA96.PCl 12/11/96mf 19 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES c. Inadequate emergency act,.ess or access to nearby uses? d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatenexi or rare speciesortheirhabitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, im~cts, ammals and birds)? b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oakforest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)? e. Wildlife dispersal or imgraflon corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans7 b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resume that would be of future value to the region end the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. Ariskofaccidentalexplosionorrclcascofhazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles, chanical or radiation)? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan7 c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? Pot~tially ~mpa~ [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] pola~tially [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [x] Ix] R:\STAI?FRPTX333PA96.PC1 12/11/96 mf ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES d. Exposureofpeopletoexistingsourcesofpotentialhealth hazards? e. Increase fife hazard in areas with ~ammablc brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection7 c. Schools? d. Mimtenanceofpublicfacilities, including roads? e. Other governmental services? 11. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or sulistantial alterations to the following utilltias: 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? £ Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway7 b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Potentially Significant In~pact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incos!a~at~d [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Significant Impa~ [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [x] Ix] [x] [x] Ix] [x] Ix] [x] [x] Ix] R:\STAPPRFI~33PA96.PCI 12/ll/gtfmf 21 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Pot~tialiy Significant Unlm No c. Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontological resources? b. Disturb archaeological resources? c, Affect historical resources? d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values7 e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? 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 serf-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or arereal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or andangered plant or aremat or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals7 Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). d, Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [1 [1 [1 [] [] [1 [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [1 [1 [] [] [l [] [1 [1 [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [] [1 [x] [x] [x] [x] [x] R:\STAFFRFrx333PA96.PC1 12/11/96mf 22 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. a. Ear~ierana~ysesused:This~nitia~Env~.~nmenta~Studyistieredfr~mtheE~Rf~rtheRe~na~C~t~Sp~cP~ CEIR No, 340) certified in 1993 and the EIR Addendum adopted in 1994, R:\STAFFRPTX333PA96.PC1 12/11/96mf 23 EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST JUDGEMENTS The following checklist judgements list the level of impact anticipated from the proposed project. These judgements are made against the baseline of the adopted Specific Plan with its required mitigation. The checklist judgements address the question of whether the proposed project would result in additional impacts, not previously addressed in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. 1. Land Use Planning The 1993 EIR identified the loss of agricultural lands as an unavoidable significant adverse impact by the adoption of the Specific Plan. Implementation of the Specific Plan will remove existing dry farmed cropland from production. It will also result in the loss of future agricultural lands designated as "Local Important Farm/and" and "Prime Farmland" as indicated in the City' s Draft General Plan, agricultural resources. Development of the property could theoretically hasten the conversion of other agricultural areas to urban uses by creating economic pressures and increasing land value for development. However, from a practical standpoint, this project is surrounded by urbanizing or planned urban development and farming operations have not been present on the property for several years. There are no practical mitigations for this impact, with the exception of no development, even though the impact is considered a significant impact. The City Council addressed this unavoidable impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with the City's General Plan designation or zoning. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning for the proposed project which was adopted with approval of the Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposed project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and is therefore consistent with adopted regional plans. c) No Impact. The proposed project will not be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity. Buffering was considered on the eastern portion of the site, adjacent to residential development. No buffering is required to the west, north and south. d) No Impact. The proposal will not affect agricultural resources or operations. The site is currently vacant and is not being used for agricultural purposes. e) No Impact. The proposal will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted Specific Plan and will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the community in an manner that is different than contemplated in the Specific Plan. R:~STAFFRPTX333PA96.PC1 12/11/96mf 24 2. Population and Housing The 1993 EIR did not identify any significant population and housing impacts. a) No Impact. The proposal will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. It is therefore consistent with official regional and local projections. b) No Impact. The proposal will not induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly beyond that previously analyzed in the 1993 EIR for the Specific Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the adopted Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not displace existing housing, especially affordable housing. The proposed project site is currently vacant. 3. Geologic Problems The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Geologic Problems ( Soils, Ground Rupture, Ground Surface Cracking, Liquefaction, Seismically Induced Flooding, Topography, Groundwater, Slope Stability and Wind Erosion) have been reduced to an insignificant level (Pages V-17, V-24 and V-25). a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from fault rupture beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impact from seismic ground shaking beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from seismic ground failure or liquefaction beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from landslides or mudflows beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. In additional, no additional significant geotechnical information regarding the project has been developed since certification of the 1993 EIR. R:\STAFFRIr~333PA96.PC1 12/11/96mf 25 f) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No additional significant geotechnical information regarding the project site, erosion, soil or grading related impacts have been developed since certification of the 1993 EIR. g) No Impact. The proposal will not result in an impact due to subsidence of the land. The proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No additional significant geotechnical information regarding the project has been developed since certification of the 1993 EIR. Therefore, no additional impacts beyond those described in the 1993 are anticipated. h) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from expansive soils beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. No additional significant geotechnical information regarding the project has been developed since certification of the 1993 EIR. No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to unique geologic or physical features beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 4. Water The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Water (Water Quality and Flooding) have been reduced to an insignificant level (Pages V-30, and V-58). The 1994 EIR Addendum further elaborated upon the impacts from the project and additional/revised Mitigation Measures required. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff beyond those impacts described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendure and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendure. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendure and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional changes in the amount of surface water in any water body beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:XSTAFFRPT\333PA96.PCZ 12/11/96mf ]6 e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. f) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional change in the 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 beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. g) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional alteration to the direction or rate of flow of groundwater beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. h) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to groundwater quality beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. i) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional substantial reductions in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum~ This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 5. Air Quality The 1993 EIR identified Air Quality as impacted in an unavoidable significant adverse way by the certification of the EIR and the adoption of the Specific Plan. Although impacts to air quality will occur during the grading and construction phase of the project, the major impact to air quality will come from vehicle exhaust after build out of the project. Mitigation measures have been added to the project to lessen the impacts to the air quality. While measures provide feasible mitigations for the increased traffic, the impact to air quality will still be significant. The total number of vehicle trips generated from the project and surrounding projects cannot be reduced sufficiently to enable the impact to be considered insignificant. The City Council addressed these unavoidable impacts in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional potential to violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFFRFI~33PA96.PC1 12/11/96mf 27 c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in the creation of any additional obiectional odors beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 6. Transportation/Circulation The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Circulation and Traffic have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-117). This project impacts both on and off-site roadways. The size of the project generates sufficient traffic to require the project to comply with the State Congestion Management Program. The circulation pattern connects with proposed roadways that run through the City of Murrieta and the County of Riverside. The Traffic Study included in the technical appendix of the EIR details the impacts to the circulation system of all three jurisdictions. The analysis contains mitigation measures and timing requirements for the completion of the improvements. These mitigations have been included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of Approval for the project. Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. 1 concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263. The impacts will be lessened by adherence to the Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures. The City Council addressed this unavoidable impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. The 1994 EIR Addendure further elaborated upon the impacts from the project and additional/revised Mitigation Measures required. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion beyond that described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional hazards to safety from design features beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendure. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendure and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional inadequacies for emergency access or access to nearby uses beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendure. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional insufficiencies to parking capacity on-site or off-site beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendure and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendum and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFFP, PT~33PA96.tN21 12/11/96mf 2~ f) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendum. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendure and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. g) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional conflicts with rail, waterborne or air traffic beyond those described in the 1993 EIR and the 1994 EIR Addendure. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR, the 1994 EIR Addendure and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 7. Biological Resources The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Wildlife/Vegetation have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-83). Although the site is not habitat for any rare or endangered species, the loss of the habitat will add to the cumulative loss of wildlife habitat in the area. This cumulative loss is considered significant even though the individual project impact is not considered significant. The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b} No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to locally designated species beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to locally designated natural communities beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to wetland habitat beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e} No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Energy and Mineral Resources have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-85). R:\STAFFRPT~33PA96.FCI 12/11/96mf 29 a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional conflicts with adopted energy conservation plans beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from the use of non- renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to which would result in the loss of availability of a known resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 9. Hazards The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Hazards (Toxic Substances, Page V-62 and Disaster Preparation, Page V-151) have been reduced to an insignificant level (Page V-85). a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation) beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to or in a possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d} No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or increases to fire hazards in areas of flammable brush, grass, or trees beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:',STAFFRPT~33PA96.PC1 12/11/96mf 30 10. Noise The 1993 EIR identified Noise as a significant adverse impact. Noise impacts will occur during grading and construction of the project, although the major impact to noise will be from the cumulative effect of increased traffic on the roadways from this project and additional development in the area. Impacts during construction will be lessened by controlling the time construction activities are allowed to take place. Even after implementation of feasible mitigation measures, the cumulative noise impact cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional increase in existing noise levels beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional exposure of people to severe noise levels beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 11. Public Services The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Public Services (Fire Service, Page V-125; Police Protection - Page V-126; Schools, Page V-130 and Libraries, Page V -145) have been reduced to an insignificant level. Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. 1 concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263, in the areas of Public Services (Fire Protection Services, Police Protection Services, Schools, and Libraries). The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services beyond those described in the 1993 EIR~ This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new or altered police protection services beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new or altered schools beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new or altered maintenance of public facilities, including roads beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAI~I~RJ~I'~333PA96.1~C1 12/11/96mf 3] e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for other new or altered governmental services beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 12. Utilities and Service Systems The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Utilities and Service Systems (Water and Sewer, Page V-122; Utilities, Page V-137; and Solid Waste, Page V-143) have been reduced to an insignificant level. Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. 1 concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263, in the areas of Public Services (Water and Sewer and Utilities). The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sewer or septic systems beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. f) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to slid waste disposal described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. in a need for beyond that scope ofthe g) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFFRl'I~333PA96.FCI 12/11196mf 32 13. Aesthetics The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Aesthetics (Scenic Highways, Page V-88 and Light and Glare, Page V-149) have been reduced to an insignificant level. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional increase or affect to a scenic vista or scenic highway beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional demonstrable negative aesthetic effect beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts from light and glare beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. 14. Cultural Resources The 1993 EIR indicated no cultural resources are anticipated to occur on the site (EIR No. 340, Appendix D, Technical Appendices). Adherence to the paleontologists mitigation program and the conditions of approval will reduce the potential impact to a level of non-significance (Cultural and Scientific Resources, Page V-92). Cumulative unavoidable significant impacts were identified from the development of Specific Plan No. 255 and Specific Plan No. 1 concurrently with Specific Plan No. 263, in the areas of Public Services (Water and Sewer and Utilities). The City Council addressed this unavoidable cumulative impact in the Findings of Overriding Consideration associated with the certification of the EIR. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to paleontological resources beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to archaeological resources beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. c) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to historical resources beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. d) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. e) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts which would restrict existing religious or scared uses within the potential impact area beyond that described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:~STAFFRFr~33PA96.PCI 12/11/96mf 33 15. Recreation The 1993 EIR indicated that based upon the mitigation measures proposed for the project, the level of impacts related to Recreation (Open Space and Conversation, Page V-69 and Parks and Recreation, Page V-132) have been reduced to an insignificant level. a) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts or an increase in the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. b) No Impact. The proposal will not result in any additional impacts affecting existing recreational opportunities beyond those described in the 1993 EIR. This is because the proposed project is within the scope of the 1993 EIR and is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. R:\STAFFP, PT~333PA96.PC1 12/11/96mf 34 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. PA96-0333 SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER R:\STAFFKPT~333PA96.KT1 12/11/96mf 35 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRPT~33PA96.1~l 12/11/96mf 36 CITY OF TEMECULA ./ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0333 (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP 'LANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 16, 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA 6P OS BP LM M LI, A M BP · '~ / / BP VL PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0333 (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) EXHIBIT B GENERAL PLAN MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 16, 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA SP SP PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0333 (DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) EXHIBIT C ZONING MAP ~_ANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 16, 1996 ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 16, 1996 Planning Application No. PA96-0291 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Matthew Fagan0 Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0291; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA96-0291; and ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0291 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Bob Gorham REPRESENTATIVE: Philip G. Esbensen PROPOSAL: The design and construction of a 17,450 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing building on a 44,502 square foot parcel LOCATION: North side of Rio Nedo, west of the intersection of Rio Nedo and Calle Empleado EXISTING ZONING: LI (Light Industrial) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP (Business Park) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant R:\STAFFRFI'X291pAg6.PC 1215196mf SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Vacant Vacant Office and Construction) Vacant Equipment Storage (Under PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: 1.02 acres Total Site Area: Building Area: 17,450 square feet Landscape Area: 8,996 square feet Paved Area: 15,312 square feet Parking Required: 38 parking spaces Parking Provided: 38 parking spaces Building Height: Twenty-four feet (24') BACKGROUND Planning Application No. 96-0291 was submitted to the Planning Department on October 17, 1996. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on October 31, 1996. The project was deemed complete on November 20, 1996. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the design and construction of a 17,450 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing building on a 44,502 square foot parcel. ANALYSIS Site Design The project will take access from Rio Nedo. Parking is located in the front, side and rear of the project. Loading facilities are on the west and north sides of the building. Truck turning radii have been included on the plan for the rear loading facilities. An outdoor employee patio area will be located at the eastern portion of the site. Potential future access to the parcel adjacent to the west has been considered and provided. This access point has been considered because the applicant owns the parcel to the west. The applicant has done a good job meeting the performance standards outlined in the Development Code (i.e, circulation, architectural design, site planning and design and compatibility). Architecture The architecture is consistent with other buildings in the area. The building will be tilt-up concrete, with reveals to break up the massing. The south, west and east elevations have been articulated through the use of reveals, windows (glazing) and a mixture of painted concrete and sandblasted concrete. Multiple entrances to the building have been included on the west side of the building and include additional articulation to identify them as entrances. Loading facilities are located on the west and north elevations. R:\STAFFRIrI~291PA96.PC 12/5/96mf 2 Landscaping Twenty percent (20.2%) of the site has been landscaped. Landscaping provided is consistent with the twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial) zone. Larger trees (24" box) have been added at the driveway. The City's Landscape Architect has reviewed the landscape plan and the applicant has addressed comments on the landscape plan. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). 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 project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An initial Study has been prepared for this project. The initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code. The applicant has done a good job in terms of design of the project and has been responsive to issues and concerns raised by Staff. FINDINGS The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mr. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and 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. R:~STAFFRPT~91pA96.PC 12/5/~6mf 3 Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 a. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 Initial Study - Blue Page 17 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 35 Exhibits - Blue Page 42 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Elevations R:\STAl~RFPa91PA96.PC 12/S~6mf 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- R:\STAFFRPT~91PA96.PC 12/5/96mf 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-_ A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMS~SSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0291 (DEVELOPMlv~NT PLAN) TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 17,450 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND WAREHOUSE BUILDING, ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.02 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RIO NEDO, WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIO NEDO AND CALLE EMPLEADO AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEl. NO. 909-290-029 WHEREAS, The Gorham Company, Inc. filed Planning Application No. PA96-0291 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0291 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0291 on December 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 hearing, upon heating and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0291; 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. PA96-0291 makes the following findings; to wit: 1. 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 1 ~ndscaping provisions. R:\STAFFRPTX291PA96.PC 12/5/96mf 6 2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. Section 3. F. nvironmental 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. PA96-0291 to construct and operate a 17,450 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing building on a 44,502 square foot parcel located on the north side of Rio Nedo, west of the intersection of Rio Nedo and Calle Empleado and known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 909-290-029 subject to Exhibit a, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a pan hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of December, 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 December, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAPFRIrF~91PA96.PC 12/5/96mf 7 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRFl~91PA96.PC 12/5/96mf 8 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA96-0291 (Development Plan) Project Description: The design end construction of a 17,450 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing building on · 44,502 square foot parcel Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-290-029 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. PA96-0291 (Development Plan). 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:\STAFFRIq~291PAg~.I~2 12/5/gdnkf 9 4. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, or as amended by these conditions. ao Two (2) Class II bicycle spaces shall be provided. b. Two (3) motorcycle spaces shall be provided. c. Thirty-eight (38) parking spaces shall be provided. d. Two (2) handicapped parking spaces 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). Concrete (walls) Concrete (walls) Metal (roll-up doors) Metal (door/frames) Aluminum (mullions) Glazing (entrances/windows) Bronze (lighting fixtures) Frazee #5970W "Light Birch Bark" Sandblasted Finish - Natural Color Frazee #4933M "Jessica" Frazee #5970W "Light Birch Bark" Windowmaster "Aquamarine" Reflective Green Dark Bronze Housing Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation). 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. R:',STAFFRFB291PA96.PC 12/5/96mf 12. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. 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. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: am Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time 6f submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the plan). 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: R:XSTAF1;I~t'T~91PA~.PC 12/5/9~ mf 11 "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. 19. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning. 20. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 21. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 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. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). 25. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems. 26. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 27. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 28. Provide appropriate stamp 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. R:\STAFFRFI~291PA96.PC 12/5/96mf 12 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 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. 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 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. R:\STAFFI~91PA~6.1~C 12/5/96mf 13 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. 41. 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 has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 42. 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 driveway shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. Onsite curb and gutter shall be constructed per City of Temecula Standards Nos. 201 and 204. Street outlet 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. 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 R:\ST~91PA96.PC 12/5/~f 14 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, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 47. 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 light at specific location approved by the Department of Public Works per City Standards No. 800 & 801. Sidewalk along entire Rio Nedo frontage per City Standards No. 400 & 401. 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 Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated October 29, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 51. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 24, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 52. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology, University of California Riverside's transmittal dated August 20, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 53. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Fire Department's transmittal dated November 6, 1996, a copy of which is attached. R:\STAFFRIvI'X291PA96.PC 12/5/96mf 54. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated November 8, 1996, a copy of which is attached. R:'~TAFFRFI~291pA96.PC 12/5196mf 16 TO: FROM RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: October 24, 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Matthew Fagan ~t~G~x~GOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist PLOT PLAN NO. PA96-0291 The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA96-0291 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance. the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022). c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3. · Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2.) · Waste reduction management. d) A letter from the Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA). 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. cc: Doug Thompson. Hazardous Materials George M. Woods John F. Hennigar Phillip L. Forbes E. P. '~ob" Lemons Kenneth C, bealy Linda M, Fregoso C. Michael Cowerr October 29, 1996 Mr. Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY PARCEL 29 OF PARCEL MAP 21382 APN 909-290-029 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 96-0291 Dear Mr. Fagan: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. 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 96/SB: rng250/F012 C: Laurie Willlares, Engineering Services Supervisor November 6, 1996 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MATTHEW FAGAN RE:PA96-0291 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commerc'ml building using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. A fire flow of 1750 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/I"), will be located no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the job site. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. 10. i1. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 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 ti~e page of the building plans. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to install a fire alarm system. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites 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. Comply with Title 19/24 of The California Code of Regulations. 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 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 12)epartment 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. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set forth by the Fire Department. 18. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Offme. 19. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and engineering section 009)694-6439. Brian Hampton Fire Safety Specialist DAVID P ZAPPE 7829.1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRIC , City of Temecula Plannin Department 43200 ~usiness Park Drive Temecula. California 92590 Attention: IS/II~TT'HF-L~ ;l~lr,_= Iqr'4 Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including Distdct Master Draina e Plan facilities, other ional flood control and draina e facilities which could be,considered a logical componen~or extension of a mas~err~p an system, and Distdct Area ~?;aineg.= Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature ic provided. The Distdct has not reviewed the roposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any wa constjtute or imply Distdct approvaVor endomement of the proposed project w~th raspoct to flood hazard, public healt~ and safety or any other such issue: /" This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and Distdct plan check and inspection will be required for Distdct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be conmdered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted Master Drainage Plan. The Distdct would consider acceptin ownership of such tac~l~ties on written request of the Ci . Facilitjes must be constructed to Distdct standar%gs, and District plan check and inspection will be requiredt~6r District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. DistricPor Ci dor to final ap royal of the prg'ect, or in t~e case of a rcel map or subdivision prior to recordation ~Tt~e final map. ~J~es to be paid s~ould be at the rate in eftPe~t at the time of recordation, or if deferred, at the time of issuance of the actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This proiect may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S ,stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other hS;ial approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If tf-is pro'ect involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should reG,:re tee applicant to rovide all studies, calcu ations, plans and other reformation required to meet FEMA rec~arements, and should ~rther require that the appllicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the CaYifornia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean PV~ter Act Section 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of En ineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A ~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/275-1200 909/788-9965 FAX Very truly yours, STUART E. MCKIBBIN ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\STAFFRPT~91PAgd. PC 12/5/~6mf 17 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: 8. Description of Project: 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Other public agencies whose approval is required: Planrag Application No. PA96-0291 (Development Plan) City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 North side of Rio Nedo, west of the intersection of Rio Nedo and Calle Empleado The Gorham Company, 2055 Hanmer Avenue, Norco, CA 91760 BP (Business Park) LI (Light Industrial) The design and construction of a 17,450 square foot office, warehouse and manufacturing bttildmg on a 44,502 square foot parcel The project is located in an area that has been previously graded, st~ect improvements have been made and water and sewer am within vicimty of the project. Land is vacant to the north and west. Riverside County Fire DeparUnent, Riverside County Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho Califomia Water Distxict, Southern Cahfomia Gas Company, Southern Califomia Edison Company, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: R:\STAITFRFrX291PA96.PC 1215196nff 18 The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise IX] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services [X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality [X] 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 fred 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 Date Printed Name For R:XSTAF~RPT~91PAg~.]?C 121SIg~faf 19 Potentially $igni~out b~act Unless Mitigation Incotl, orated No 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or poli(xes adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project7 c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Sottree 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soLIs or farmlands, or impacts fi'om incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Yigure 5-4, Page 5-17) e. Disrupt or fixvide the phyixcal arrangement of an established commumty (mclucVmg low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirec~y (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major mfi'astructure)? c. Displace existinghougmg, espe~xallyaffordeblehougmg? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? b. Seismic ground shaking? c. Seisrmc ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Seiehe, tsunan~, or volcanic hazard? e. Landslides or mudflows? £ Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? g. Subsidence ofthc land? h. Expansive s~xls? i. Unique geologic or physical features? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] pcl [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Ix] [x] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] Ix] Ix] Ix] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] R:\STAFFPavI~91PA96.17C I,~5,'96mf 20 Signifiam Potm~x~lJy Significant Unle, u Mitigation Incot~omt=d Signiticant impact No hnpact 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as ~ooding? (Source2, Figure13, Page95and Source 2, Figure 30, Page 190 ) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g. Altereddireetionorrateof~owofgroundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater quality? i. Substantial reduction in file 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. Exposcsensitivereceptorstopollutants? c. Alter air movamenL moisture or temperature, or cause any change in dimate? d. Create objectionable odors? [] [] [) [) [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Ix] [] TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or Uraffic congestion? [] [] [] R:\STAPFRPTx291PA96.PC 12/5/96mf 21 Po~mhlly Significant Impset Pot~islly Unlm Mh~fion Incorporated L~sThan Significant No Impact Impact b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g. Rail, waterborne or air traffio impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the propesal result In impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened orrare speeies or their habitats (mclucFmg but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)7 b. Locally designalex1 species (e.g. heritage trees)? c, Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)? e. Wildlife dispersal or imgration corndors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans7 b. Use non-renewal resources In a wasteful and Inefficient mmmcr? c. Result in the loss of availabilily of a known mineral resource that would bc of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal Involve: a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles, chemical or radiation)? b. Possible Interference with an emcrgcncy response plan or emergency evacuation plan? R:\STAFFRi~T~91PAg~.PC 1~/5/96mf 22 [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [x] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [] Ix] [1 [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] ['xJ [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] Ix] ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFOP, I~ATION SOURCES Potcntially Significant impact Silnffica~ Unless Mhilafion IncoxporaXe~ Significant Impnet No c. The creation of ~y health hazard or potcntial health hazard? d. Exposureofpeopletocxistingsoureesofpotentialhcalth hazards? e. Increase fire h~rd in areas with fiammable brush, grass, or tre~s? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. Exposureofpeopletoseverenffiselevels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered 2overoment services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Mamtenanceofpublicfacili~es, including roads? e, Other governmental servtces? 12. UTILI'I'II~S AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or stlbstantia[ alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Local or regional water l~eaXment or distribution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? AESTH[ETICS. Would the proposal: 13, [] [1 [1 [l [] [l [] [1 [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Ex] ix] ix] ix] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [1 [1 [] [1 [] [] Ix] Ix] Ix] [] [x] Ix] R:kqTAFFRFB291PA96.PC 12/5/96nff 23 Powmhlly Si~mificant Impact Po~n~y Signi~cam Unleu Miligadon Inco~poraW. d L~u Than SiSnificant No Impact Impact 14. 15. 16. a. Affect a scemc vim or seehie highway? [ ] b. Have a demonsWable negative aesthetic effect? [ ] c. Create light or glare? [ ] CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Dislurb paleontological resources? [ ] b. Disturb archaeologlcalresoumes? [ ] 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? [ ] RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational fa~fiities? [ ] b. Affect ensting recreational opporVmities? [ ] MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCL a. 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 seff-sus~ining levels, threaten to el~ninate a plant or arereal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history orprehistory? [ ] Does the project have the potential to achieve short-t~% m the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [ ] c. Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cnmulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incx~'menta] effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). [ ] b, [] [] Pq [] [] Ix] Ix] [] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [x] [] [] [x] [] [] Ix] [] [] [x] [] [x] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] [] [] Ix] [] [] Ix] R:~STAFFRPT~91PA96.PC 12/5/96nff 24 17. , d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substanljal adverse effects on human beings, either direedy or indireotly? EARLIER ANALYSES. None. SOURCES City of Temecula General Plan. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. [] [] [] R:\STAFFRPT~291pA96.PC 12/5/96nff 25 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use and Planning 1.b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EtR 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 site has been previously graded and services within proximity of the project. 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. 1.8. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community). The project is an industrial/office/warehouse use in an area surrounded by land that is currently planned to be developed with similar uses. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Pooulation and Housing The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is an industrial/office/warehouse use which is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does not exceed the floor area ratio for Business Park, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. The project will cause people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.c. The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant; therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Geologic Problems R:~STAFFRPTX291PA96.PC 12/5/96nff 26 3.e. c,9,h. 3.d. 3.8. 3.f. 3.i. The project will result in a less than significant impact on people as a result of fault rupture. The western portion of the project site is traversed by two identified north/south trending faults. The driving range will be located over these faults, and no habitable structures will be located within the fault setback zone. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking; however, there may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography, grading or fill. The site has been previously graded and the project does not propose significant grading beyond that which has already occurred. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Since the amount of grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project, modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPTX291PA96.PC 12/5/~mf 27 4.d,e. 4.f-h. 4.i. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No 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 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:\STAFFRFI~91PA96.1~ 12151~6~f 28 Air Quality 5.8. 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 (276,000 square feet) established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Page 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.b. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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. 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 intersection of Rio Nedo and Calle Empleado. 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 industrial/office/warehouse use in an area with existing and planned similar uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not provide direct access to nearby uses; therefore, it will not impact access to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d. The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The applicant has completed a parking needs analysis based upon the uses 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:\STAFFRP'B291PAg~.PC 12/5/9~mI~ 29 6.6. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicycfists. 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 is: "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 7.8. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.b. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.c. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.d. The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site or within proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.8. The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRFI~91PAg~.PC 12/5/96mf 30 Energy and Mineral Resources 8.a. 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. 9.a. The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. Large quantities of these types of substances will not be associated with this use. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and the applicant must receive their clearance prior to any plan check submittal. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any 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 taws. 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:~STAFFR.rI~291PA96.I,C 12/5/96mf 3]. 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 a industrial/office/warehouse development in an area of existing and future similar uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Noise 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. 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 1OO+ 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~91PA96.PC 12/5/96mf 32 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:\STAFFRiYr~91PAg~.PC 12/5/96mf 33 13.b. The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse use in an area of existing and proposed similar uses. The building is consistent with other high quality design in the area and proposed landscaping will provide additional aesthetic enhancement (including the proposed driving range). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 14.a-c. The project will not have an impact on paleontological, archaeological or historical resources. The site has been disturbed from prior grading activity and any impacts to these resources would have been mitigated during the grading process. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14~d. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.a,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e. The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFPRFI~91pA96.PC 12/SI9~ mf 34 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:'xSTAFFRFI'X291PA96.PC 1215196mf 35 Mitigation Monitoring Program p]nnning AppUcation No. PA96-0291 (Development Plan, The Gorham Company) Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic Found shaking. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial Fading plan check. Building pads shah be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of Fading awl building permits. Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Deparunent. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic Found shaking. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Cede. Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Depathttent for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety DeparUnent. 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 DeparUnent of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works. R:~STAI~RFl'~91PA96.PC 12/5/96mf 36 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Cede. Submit landscape plans that include plapfing of slope to the Planning Depa~ hnent for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake haTards. Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Deparunent of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department. Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Cede. Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department R:\STAFIqliq?~91PA96.PC 12151~6mf 37 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 ceonveyances, 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 shah 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. Depathaent of Public Works. R:\STAFFRFY~91pA96.PC 12/5/96mf 38 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 Waffle congestion, Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee. Pay pro-rata share for waffle 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. Provide on-site parking spaces to aecontmodate the use. Install on-site parldng spaces. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works, Planning Department and Building & Safety Depat hnent. 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 Stephem Kangaroo Rat. Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephem Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a Fading permit. Department of Public Works and Planning Department R:\STAFFRPT~91PA96.PC 12/5/96mf 39 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 nhare to file lllai/ltenance of service provision. Payment of Fire Mitigation Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with file Riverside County Fire Department. Prior to file issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Department A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No signi~eam impacts are anticipated. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with file Temecnia Valley Unified School Disu-ict. 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, lraffie 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:',STAFFRFI~91PA96,PC 12/5~96mf 40 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 lhe Palomar Observatory. Use lighting techniques that are consistent wilh Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Depathuem for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety Depat'haent. R:\STAFFRFI~91PA96.PC 12/5/96mf 41 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRPT~91pA96.PC I~/5/~6 mf 4') CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0291 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 16, 1996 VICINITY MAP R:WI'AFFRPT~91PAg~.PC 11/14/96mf CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0291 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 16, 1996 BP LM ./ M m R:\STAFFRlrf~91pA96.PC ll/14/96mf CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0291 (Development Plan} EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -DECEMBER 16, 1996 SITE PLAN R:\STAPF'RFI~.91PA96.PC 11114196 mf CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0291 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 16, 1996 ELEVATIONS R:~TAFFRFI'~91pA96,pC 11/14/96mf CITY OF TEMECULA RIO NEDO PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0291 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - E LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 16, 1996 R:~STAFF~,PI~291PA96.PC 11/14/~6m~e ITEM #6 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager December 16, 1996 Design Guidelines MEMORANDUM Prepared by: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission: Adoat a Resolution Recommending that the City Council Adopt the Design Guidelines BACKGROUND: The draft Design Guidelines have been before the Planning Commission on four previous occasions. On November 4, 1996, the Planning Commission concluded their initial review of the document. The item was continued to December 16, 1996 to allow staff to incorporate the Commission's changes and to allow the Commission a final review of the document. Attachments: Revisions to Design Guidelines - Blue Page 2 R:\STAFFRPT',DESIGNGL.PC6 12/12/96 cdr ]- ATTACHMENT NO. 1 REVISIONS TO DESIGN GUIDELINES R:\STAFFRFI~DESIGNGL.FC6 12/10/96 cdr 2 0 ~o~' o Fr ~' ~ 0