HomeMy WebLinkAbout111797 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
November 17, 1997, 6.'00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Fahey
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Guerriero, Miller, Slaven and Soltysiak
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are
not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the
Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out
and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before
Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
2. Planning Commission Minutes from October 20, 1997
3. Color and Material Boards for Large Scale Projects
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0348
City of Temecuta
City-wide in the Residential Zoning Designations
Amendment to the City's Development Code Pertaining to Permitted Uses
for Granny Flats and Guest Houses, Parking Standards for Multi-Family
Units, Second Units, Granny Flats, and Guest Houses in Residential Areas
and adding a definition of Guest House
Negative Declaration
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
Recommend Approval
PLANNING MANAGERSREPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
Next meeting: December 1, 1997 - Regular Planning Commission meeting
R:\WII~BERVG\PLAIqCOM34XAGENDAS~5-6-96 11/13/97 vgw
ITEM #2
INDEX
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 20, 1997
SUBJECT
PAGE
CALLTO ORDER .............................................. 2
ROLL CALL .................................................. 2
PUBLIC COMMENTS ............................................ 2
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2.
3.
4.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA ......................................... 2
MINUTES OF 9-8-97 AND 9-15-97 .................................. 3
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE & NECESSITY FOR SHAKESPEARES ................ 3
REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE FOR LUCKY'S ........... 3 - 4
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
PA NO. 97-0170: SELF-STORAGE FACILITY ........................ 4 - 8
PA NO. 97-0283: FIVE INDUSTRIAL SPECULATIVE BUILDINGS ........... 8 - 9
PA NO. 97-0234: INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ......................... 9 - 10
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT ............................. 10
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ......................... 10
ADJOURNMENT ......................................... 11
P:~l, rUTES\102097.PC ll/13/97vgw 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 20, 1997
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:00 P.M., on
Monday, October 20, 1997, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, and
Chairwoman Fahey.
Absent: None.
Also Present:
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske,
Principal Engineer Ron Parks,
Assistant City Attorney Curley,
Senior Planner Dave Hogan,
Assistant Planner Patty Anders, and
Minute Clerk Michaela Ballreich.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved for the approval of the Agenda. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Seotember 8, 1997
MOTION; Commissioner Slaven moved for the approval of,the September 8, 1997,
Planning Commission minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller
and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
With regard to the September 15, 1997, Planning Commission minutes,
Commissioner Miller requested the following amendment and addition:
Page 4, paragraph 5, "With regard to recommended ... Commissioner Miller noted his
Qeeosition with regard ..."
Page 6, paragraph 7, "With regard to .., because of the reduction in ground elevation
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved for the approval of the September 15, 1997,
Planning Commission minutes as amended, The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
m
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 97-0279 FOR FINDING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR
NECESSITY FOR A NIGHTCLUB USE AT 28822 FRONT STREET (UNITS 203 & 204) -
LEE CORNWELL
RECOMMENDATION
To approve.
Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the request (as per written material of record).
Based on the information received in the staff report, Commissioner Miller offered the
following motion:
MOTION; Commissioner Miller moved to make a finding of public convenience. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
REVIEW OF REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE FOR LUCKY SHOPPING
CENTER
Advising that the site of discussion is the Lucky Shopping Center at the corner of
Margarita Road and South SR79, Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (of record),
noting that the primary change will be the incorporation of the Say-on Drugstore into the Lucky
store versus building it on the corner pad; that no new plans have been submitted for the
corner pad; that the length and size of the Lucky building will basically remain the same, noting
that the front portion of the building will be approximately 2' wider; that the revised building
will be approximately 3' to 4' lower from what was originally approved; and that nominal
changes were made to the design features.
Considering the amount of time the Commission spent discussing this item at its original
review, Commissioner Staven expressed some disappointment with this amendment, noting that
the corner pad was an integral part of the Center in making it more of a neighborhood-type
center and a more pedestrian-friendly center. Commissioner Slaven requested that any future
development for the corner pad, no matter what size, be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
P:XMI/qLrrES\IO2097.PC ll/13/97vgw 3
In response to Chairwoman Fahey's comment that the Lucky parking lot will, as a result
of this amendment, be visible from all sides, Senior Planner Hogan advised that a landscaping
buffer has been proposed for sides along south SR79 and Margarita Road.
At 6:24 P.M., a short recess was taken and the meeting was reconvened at 6:29 P,M.
5. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0170 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
Planning Commission consideration to construct and operate a 103,510 square foot
self-storage facility (67 units) including an office and manager's residential unit of
2,328 square feet and 8,685 square feet of R.V. parking area on a 5.15 acre site.
RECOMMENDATION
To approve the request as conditioned.
Assistant Planner Anders reviewed the staff report (as per written material of record),
noting that the following changes should be made to the staff report:
report should reflect the date of October 20, 1997;
total overall square footage (including self-storage and manager's unit/office)
should be 105,838 -- 2,328 square feet designated to the manager's
units/office;
page 7, add Attachment H - Color Sample Material Board;
add a condition restricting hours of operation Monday through Saturday
7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.; Sunday 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.;
page 14, Condition No. 8 should reflect Exhibit G and Condition No. 9 should
reflect Exhibit H;
page 14, Condition No. 11, should read "Periodical auctions will be held by the
property owner to auction the belongings of delinquent renters. The auctions
shall be held no more than once a month, during the hours of normal business."
In response to a letter received from Mr. James with regard to this request, Assistant
Planner Anders clarified the following issues:
that the majority opposition pertains to what type of uses are permitted under
the Professional Office Zone as per 1993;
that the residents had requested a Professional Office Zone versus Residential
Zone for Planning Area 8;
P:~'FdTI~S\102097,PC ll/13/97vgw 4
that the City's current Professional Office Zone would not permit the proposed
use.
Ms. Anders noted that Mr, James would view the proposed project as an incompatible
land use and visually intrusive.
For Commissioner Slaven, Assistant Planner Anders clarified that the Roripaugh Specific
Plan for Planning Area 8, which references County Ordinance 348, Section 9.4, and under
which the requested use would be conditionally permitted but that under the City's Professional
Office Zone, the proposed use for Planning Area 8 would not be a permissible use.
Further clarifying how a County Ordinance integrates with a City Zone, Attorney Curley
provided a chronology of events, noting the following:
that prior to City incorporation, the County, Mr. Roripaugh, and other entities
entered into a Development Agreement;
that the City's General Plan incorporated, as part of its land use regulations,
Specific Plans, County Zoning, and anticipated future approvals and development
activities;
that the City of Temecula incorporated, State law stated that when a City
incorporates, any existing Development Agreement remains in effect for at least
eight years unless it self-extinguishes before that time;
that a Development Agreement is a contract zoning tool which applies zoning
and land use; that it may or may not conform to the General Plan or Zoning;
that the City completed its General Plan; that the General Plan foresaw Planning
Area 8 as a residential use; that upon further review, it was determined that the
residential zone was possibly not the most suitable zone; that the surrounding
residents preferred the Professional Office Zone or Office Commercial Zone;
that the City's zoning requirements are narrower in scope than the County's;
that the City's zoning definitions have not been imposed upon this project
because Planning Area 8 continues to fall under the Roripaugh Specific Plan
which refers to sections of County Ordinance No. 348;
that after review, it has been determined that there have been no modifications
to the Specific Plan limiting the types of uses for Planning Area 8 other than
those uses reflected in Ordinance No. 348, Section 9.4;
that the Development Agreement will expire December 31, 1997.
At the time the City's General Plan was completed, Senior Planner Hogan advised that
all existing Specific Plans were incorporated into the General Plan; therefore, the General Ran
and existing Specific Plans are consistent with each other. Senior Planner Hogan noted that
the existing adjacent homes were constructed approximately two years ago.
In response to Commissioner Slaven, Planning Manager Ubnoske confirmed that other
permissible uses for the subject site include a drive-in theater, heliport, animal hospital, lumber
yard, etc.
At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant, expressed concurrence with the
recommended conditions of approval as amended, with the exception of Condition No. 5
(installation of bicycle rack) and Condition No. 63 (regarding easement for ingress and egress),
requesting the deletion of Condition No.5 and noting that the applicant would be willing to
work with the Public Works Department in order to resolve specific concerns with regard to
Condition No. 63. Providing additional clarification as to permissible uses, Mr. Markham
advised that the subject site is zoned Specific Plan Zoning which modified County Ordinance
348 in 1988 and tailored it to the permissible uses; and that the existing Zone will remain in
effect until a Zone Change has been approved even after the expiration of the existing
Development Agreement. Mr. Markham thanked staff for their assistance with regard to this
project; referenced the landscaping plan, noting that landscaping has been proposed along the
channel instead of a wall in an effort to deter potential graffiti problems; that the existing chain
link fence will be removed and replaced with tubular steel or wrought iron fence, which will
extend the entire length of the project; and that until the other three parcels, facing Nicolas
Road, are constructed, the front of the project will be enhanced with landscaping, noting that
once these three parcels are constructed, the subject site will not be visible from Nicolas Road.
In response to Commissioner Miller, Mr. Markham expressed no objection to the
imposition of a condition prohibiting the use of these storage units as a music studio and the
installation of a sign at the entrance of the facility requesting the tenants to turn down radios.
Mr. Markham advised that seven homes will back up to the proposed storage facility
(along the easterly boundary), noting these homes range from one- and two-story homes. By
way of a color chart, Mr. Markham reviewed the proposed roof colors,
Although viewing the proposed project as a well-designed facility, Ms. Jane Carney,
39537 June Court (Summerfield development), submitted a petition of opposition and spoke
in opposition to the proposed facility for the following reasons:
that the residents of Summerfield were under the impression that Planning Area
8 had been zoned Professional Office;
that hazardous materials (gasoline, propane, etc.) could be stored in these units;
that the approval of this request would decrease the residents' property values
and increase traffic use.
P:~MINLrYES\lO2097.PC ll/13/97vgw 6
Also submitting a petition of opposition, Mr. Del James, 27546 Jon Christian Place,
referenced his letter (of record) and apprised the Commission of his understanding that on
February 22, 1994, Mr. Roripaugh had agreed to the City's Professional Office Zone for
Planning Area 8, which would not permit the requested use.
Addressing comments made by the public, Mr. Markham advised that the site plan has
not been changed; that no lot split is being proposed -- there are currently four legal lots; that
as per each tenant contract, the storage of hazardous materials will be prohibited; that RV/boat
storage has been oriented away from the residential uses; that self-storage facilities create very
low traffic during peak hours compared to an office building or any other permissible use; that
the building height will range from 10' to 12' with the exception of the residential unit which
will be a two-story structure; and that low-pressure, wall-mounted sodium lights will be
installed.
In an effort to mitigate the obtrusiveness of the proposed red unit doors and red roof,
Commissioner Slaven suggested a more subtle color for the doors to which the applicant voiced
no objection and expressed a willingness to work with the Planning Manager,
In response to Commissioner Miller, Mr. Markham noted that the elimination of those
unit doors along building B which face the residential neighborhood would result in moving
building B as well as all buildings closer to the landscape setback line in order to provide a
deeper access. With regard to landscaping, Mr. Markham advised that a 10' landscaped strip
has been proposed along the easterly boundary (residential side), noting that 24' box trees
would be spaced approximately 25' apart.
Mr. Vince Di Dinado, representing the applicant, further reviewed the proposed
landscaping plan, commenting on choice and placement of trees and noting that trees will be
spaced 25' apart to properly accommodate long-term growth.
Mr. Scott Barnard, ZB Investment, briefly referenced the design layout, advising that the
building aisles were initially designed to run perpendicular to the residential units but for
aesthetic reasons and to eliminate a driveway view, the aisles were redesigned to run parallel
to the residential units. With regard to tenant contracts, Mr. Barnard advised that contract
regulations are set by insurance companies as well as the industry; reiterated that the storage
of hazardous material will be prohibited but that because it is not permissible to enter a tenant's
unit, it would be impossible to determine whether such materials are actually being stored,
noting that such a situation could arise with any land use; and that the buitdings are concrete
block around perimeter and interior partitions are metal panels.
Mr. Markham noted that the white report for the adjacent residential units reflected a
residential zone to the north, south, and east and a commercial zone to the west.
Although the proposal would be legally conforming, Chairwoman Fahey expressed her
opposition to Finding No. 2, noting that the proposed use would not be compatible with
surrounding uses.
Concurring with Chairwoman Fahey's comment, Commissioner Slaven noted that the
proposed use would not be compatible with the shopping center planned next to the subject
site.
Commissioner Miller noted that the owners of the adjacent residential units received
white reports disclosing the proposed commercial zone to the west; that the subject site is
properly zoned; and that if this relatively low-traffic use was denied, the applicant could
suggest the construction of a heliport or some other commercial use which could create more
traffic especially during peak hours.
Commissioner Soltysiak reiterated that the applicant could construct a recycling
collection facility without the need for a Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Miller apprised the Commissioners and staff that he had met with Mr.
Markham and had visited the site of discussion. Commissioner Soltysiak noted that he had
reviewed the project design with the applicant's representative.
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0170; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0170; and to adopt Resolution No. 97- as
conditioned, including findings of fact set forth by staff and adding and deleting the following
conditions:
that the facility may not be utilized as a music studio;
that a sign be posted at the entrance of the facility requesting tenants
to turn down radios when approaching the units;
Delete
· Condition No. 5 (regarding the installation of a bicycle rack.)
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval
with the exceotion of Commissioners Fahey and Slaven who voted no.
At 8:00 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at
8:12 P.M.
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0283 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
To construct five industrial speculative buildings totaling 50,512 square feet.
RECOMMENDATION
To approve as conditioned.
Commissioner Soltysiak noted that he would be abstaining with regard to this case.
Planning Assistant Andors presented the staff report (of record), noting that the
landscaping plan should be corrected to accurately reflect the planting of 13 Albizia trees.
For Commissioner Miller, Assistant Planner Andors advised that the applicant will be
required to provide 101 parking spaces based on the various types of uses (office use 1 per
300, manufacturing 1 per 400, and warehouse 1 per 1,000); that 102 parking spaces are being
proposed; that because of the various types of uses within the buildings, the buildings will be
classified as light industrial; and that parking requirements will be checked and enforced by
Planning Inspectors during Plan Check.
Mr, Terry Plowden, applicant, informed the Commission the buildings will be sold versus
leased; briefly reviewed the project's landscaping and design plan; and noted that all sidewalks
from the street will be in compliance with ADA requirements. He further advised that a 5%
grade does not require the installation of handrails.
In response to Mr. Peter Bussett, representing the applicant, Commissioner Slaven
commented on the difficulties she has experienced with Aleppo Pine trees because of their
susceptibility to pests and encouraged the use of another pine tree. Commissioner Miller
questioned whether a street tree has been designated for this area and noted his opposition to
the use of the Red Ironbark Eucalyptus tree.
In response to Commissioner Miller's comment, Chairwoman Fahey encouraged staff to
explore the designation of a street tree to ensure compatibility with surrounding areas.
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0283; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0283; and to adopt Resolution No. 97-031. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with
the exceotion of Commissioner Soltysiak who abstained.
7. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0234
To construct a 14,548 square foot industrial building on 1.16 acre site.
RECOMMENDATION
To approve as conditioned.
Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (of record), noting that the applicant of
this request currently operates a smaller facility (approximately 9,000 square feet) in the City
of Temecula; that the front office section will be a single-story building; that the remainder of
the building will be a two-story building; and that the applicant is requesting the Commission's
approval to grant a minor exception to reduce the number of required parking spaces from 27
to 25 in order to accommodate the Fire Department's requested turn-around area. Because
the proposed facility will provide less than 1,800 square feet of office space with the remainder
being warehouse area, staff relayed its support to grant a minor exception.
P:X~IINIJrES\102097.pC ll/13/97vSw 9
Mr. Alan Young, 4808 Corbin Avenue, Tarzana, representing the applicant, reiterated
that the office space of the new facility will basically be the same size as that of the existing
facility but that the primary addition will be to provide additional warehouse area.
Further clarifying the specifics of this business, Mr. Les Young, 4808 Corbin Avenue,
Tarzana, noted that a nominal amount of painting would be provided at this facility.
Because the actual office space of this business will basically not increase,
Commissioner Slaven voiced no objection to granting the minor exception to reduce the number
of required parking spaces from 27 to 25 and, therefore, offered the following motion:
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0234; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0234; to grant a Minor Exception in accordance to
Section 17.03.060 of the Development Code for a reduction in the amount of required off-
street parking from 27 spaces to 25 spaces; and to adopt Resolution No. 97-032. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Commissioner Soltysiak who ~bstained.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
At this time, Commissioner Soltysiak returned to the meeting.
Planning Manager Ubnoske briefly reminded the Commissioners of the upcoming
Planning Commission Workshop on Monday, October 27, 1997, 6:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M.
Advising that the Department is missing a video entitled "Why Plan," Planning Manager
Ubnoske requested that if any of the Commissioners have the video at home, to notify the
Planning Department.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Guerriero told the Commissioners of a new Website entitled "Lupin,"
noting that it provides information with regard to CEQA, Planning laws, etc.
Commenting on an interesting recent article (Onward and Upward in Downtown Santa
Monica) published in the current Planning Magazine, Commissioner Miller encouraged the
Planning Department staff to become more familiar with the measures undertaken in Santa
Monica.
Chairwoman Fahey advised that because of prior work commitments, she may not be
able to attend the October 27, 1997, Planning Commission Workshop.
p:WaNU'YES\lO2097.PC ll/13197vgw 10
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:40 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey formally adjourned the Planning Commission meeting
to Monday, October 27, 1997, at 6:00 P.M.
Linda Fahey, Chairwoman
Planning Manager Ubnoske
ITEM #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske,~Pl~t~ning Manager
November 17, 1997
Color and Material Boards for Large Scale Projects
Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECONIMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
Receive the Staff Report and provide Direction regarding
the size and scale of the color and material boards they
would like to receive for larger scale projects
DISCUSSION
Staff has received previous direction from the Commission to provide larger samples of colors
and materials for projects. This is easily accomplished with small scale projects which involve
limited amounts of colors and materials. In contrast, large scale projects often contain many
colors and materials. The provision of large samples will result in a greater number of
exhibits, which can prove to be an onerous requirement for the developer.
The Commission will be presented with examples of color and material boards for two large
scale projects at the November 17, 1997 meeting. Staff requests the Planning Commission
provide direction regarding the size and scale of the color and material boards they would like
to receive for larger scale projects.
R:\STAFFRPT~LSPROJ-E.FCi 11/6/97mf
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning CommisZ~,~/
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
November 17, 1997
Planning Application No. PA97-0348 - Amendment to the City's Development
Code Pertaining to Permitted Uses for Granny Flats and Guest Houses, Parking
and Driveway Standards for Multi-Family Units, Second Units, Granny Flats, and
Guest Houses in Residential Areas and adding a definition of Guest House
Prepared By:
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA97-0348; and
ADO~ Resolution No. 97- recommending that the City
Council approve an Ordinance entitled: "An Ordinance of
the City Council of the City of Temecula, amending
portions the City's Development Code pertaining to
permitted uses for granny flats and guest houses, parking
and driveway standards for multi-family units, second units,
granny flats and guest houses in residential areas and adding
a definition of guest house," based upon the Analysis
contained in the Staff Report
BACKGROUND
In recent months, staff has become increasingly aware that there may be problems with our current
parking standards for multi-family units in the Development Code. Staff conducted some analysis
(discussed below) and has determined that the parking standards for multi-family units in the
City's Development Code needs to be amended. In addition, staff has identified a potential
problem with the parking standards for second units, granny flats and guest houses and the Fire
Department has identified a potential problem with driveway widths.
R:\STAFF~8PA97,PCI llF//97mf 1
DISCUSSION
The need for the amendment was highlighted in a recently approved multi-family project.
Planning Application No. PA96-0270, a Development Plan for 312 units, was approved by the
Planning Commission on lanuary 6, 1997. This project was originally approved with 702 parking
spaces (624 covered and 78 uncovered). After the approval, the applicant filed a Minor Exception
(Planning Application No. PA97-0133) for a reduction to the amount of their required parking
spaces. At staffs request, the applicant researched this issue. They indicated, that based upon
their experience with other projects they own, both the number of guest parking spaces required
under the Development Code and the requirement for two covered parking spaces for one
bedroom units were excessive. Based upon this analysis, a minor exception was approved to allow
624 parking spaces (434 covered or enclosed and 190 uncovered) for this project.
Staff has also determined that there needs to be additional clarification on the number and type of
required parking spaces for second units, granny flats and guest houses. There are no parking
requirements for these types of uses in the Development Code, and staff has been receiving
applications and inquiries for these types of uses.
Research Conducted
The following research was conducted in the preparation of this amendment to the Development
Code:
Parking requirements for multi-family units, second units, granny flats and guest houses
for other cities were reviewed. This research indicated there is a wide range of
requirements amongst different jurisdictions.
An analysis was provided by the applicant for Planning Application Numbers PA96-0270
and Planning Application No. PA97-0133 for multi-family units. This information
indicated the amount of parking required for residents and guests was lower than that
required in the Development Code for larger multi-family projects.
Field investigations and telephone surveys were conducted of several existing multi-family
projects within the City of Temecula. This research indicated that the amount of parking
provided for existing multi-family projects exceeded the amount needed. The field
investigations were conducted on two mornings and nights of the week (Monday and
Saturday) when it was anticipated that most of the residents were at home and visitors were
present on-site. There always appeared to be a noticeable number of vacant parking
spaces. It should be noted that the parking standards from Ordinance No. 348 required
less parking spaces than the Development Code. Ordinance No. 348 required: 1.25
parking spaces for a single bedroom or studio unit, 2.25 parking spaces for two bedroom
units, and 2.75 parking spaces for three or more bedroom units. One covered, semi-
enclosed or carport parking space was required per unit.
R:XSTAFFRFFL~8PA97.PC1 llF//97raf 2
Proposed Clarifications to the Development Code
Amendments to Table 17.06.030 - Schedule of Permitted Uses, Residential Districts
To clarify which zoning designations would allow the construction of granny flats and guest
houses. A footnote w'dl be added to the actual Table to clarify that these units would be allowed
only in conjunction with a single family residence in the Medium and High Density zones. Staff
recommends the following amendments to the Development Code (additions to the language
appear in bold type-face, deletions appear as a strike-out to the text).
Table 17.06.030
Schedule of Permitted Uses
Residential Districts
Description of use HR VL L--1 L-2 LM M H
Granny Flat P P P P P P P
Guest House P P P P P P P
Amendments to Table 17.24.040 - Parking Spaces Required
To clarify the number of covered and uncovered parking spaces plus guest parking spaces
required per unit for multi-family projects, plus the parking requirements for second units and
granny flats, Staff recommends the following amendments to the Development Code (additions
to the language appear in bold type-face, deletions appear as a strike-out to the text).
Table 17.24.040
Parking Spaces Required
Description of Use
Multiple family residential - 3 or fewer
bedrooms (12 or less units)
Required Number of Spaces
2-5 units: 2 covered spaces/unit, plus 2
guest spaces
6-12 units: 2 covered spaces/unit plus 3
guest spaces
R:XSTAFFRPT'~48PA97.PCI 11/12/97mf 3
Multiple family residential - ~r-Fewer
bedroor~ (13 or more units)
2 coce~cd spaccs/ufiit,
1 covered parking space plus % uncovered
parking space for 1 bedroom (or less)
units
1 covered parking space plus 1 uncovered
parking space for 2 bedroom units
2 covered parking spaces and ¼
uncovered parking space for 3 bedroom
(or more )units
plus 1 guest space/~ 6 units, with a
minimum of 4 guest spaces
Second Unit
1 covered parking space for 2 bedroom
units or less, 2 covered parking spaces for
3 bedroom units or more
Granny Flat
I uncovered parking space. The
Community Development Director can
waive this requirement ff a written
statement is provided to the Director
which states the current resident is unable
to drive a car and that a parking space
will be provided when the granny fiat is
occupied by another person who is able to
drive a car.
The proposed modifications take into account the different guest requirements for smaller and
larger multi-family projects. The number of required guest parking for multi-family projects (13
or more units) is proposed to be reduced from 1 guest space/4 units to 1 space/6 units, with a
minimum of 4 guest parking spaces required. Staff feels this better reflects the needs for these
types of projects. The second unit would require covered parking spaces, the number required
based upon the number of bedrooms. The granny flat would require one (1) uncovered parking
space and this requirement could be waived if proof is provided that the resident is unable to drive
a car. If the parking requirement is waived, the property owner will be required to submit a letter
to the Community Development Director stating that a parking space will be provide when another
tenant moves into the unit. Staff feels these changes would better implem, ent parking requirements
in the Development Code.
R:\STAFFRPTLI48PA97.PC1 11/7/97mf 4
Amendment to Section 17.24.05003~- Driveway Width
Fire Department Staff has determined that the Development Code doesn't differentiate where fire
apparatus needs to access a site to provide fire protection services and where those services can
be provided from the street. The following are the proposed amendments:
Section 17.24.05003) of the Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
A. Replace the furst sentence in Section 17.24.050.B. 1 with the following: When
fire apparatus access is required, the minimum driveway width shall be twenty feet (20') for one-
way traffic and twenty-four feet (24') for two-way traffic. Otherwise the minimum driveway
width for a one-way driveway shall be fourteen feet (14').
B. Rename Section 17.24.050.B.2 to read: "Residential Uses (two units or less).
C. Add a new Section to be known as 17.24.050.B.3 to read as follows: Residential
Use (three to five units). When fire apparatus access is required, the minimum driveway width
shall be twenty feet (20') for one-way traffic and twenty-four feet (24') for two-way traffic.
Otherwise the minimum width for a driveway shall be twenty feet (20').
D. Amend the minimum driveway width in existing Section 17.24.050.B.3 (to be
renumbered 17.24,050.B.4) to indicate that driveway widths shall be twenty feet (20') for one-
way traffic and twenty-four feet (24') for two-way traffic.
Staff feels the proposed amendments will help clarify the requirements for driveway widths and
allow appropriate design flexibility.
Amendment to Section 17.34.010 - Definitions and Illustrations
Since there is currently no definition in the Development Code for guest house, Staff recommends
the following definition be added to Section 17.34,010 of the Development Code:
""Guest House" means an additional unit to a primary residence on a parcel zoned for single-
family residence, attached or detached, which may be utilized by guests of the primary residence
for sleeping purposes only, and does not contain cooking facilities which require outside venting
per the Uniform Building Code, and does not exceed eight hundred square feet in area.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project will not have
a significant impact on the environment. No mitigation measures are required.
R:\STAFFRPTX2,48PA97.FC1 llFl/97mf 5
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Goal 5 of the City's General Plan requires "An adequate supply of private and public parking to
meet the needs of residents and visitors to the City." The proposed amendment to the
Development Code will better implement this Goal of the General Plan by requiring larger multi-
family projects, second units and granny flats to provide the necessary amount of parking spaces
for their respective uses.
SUMMARY
Staff is proposing several amendments to the City's Development Code which will better
implement parking requirements in the Development Code. These modifications include adding
granny flats and guest houses to the list of permitted uses in Table 17.06.030, revising parking
standards for multi-family units, second units, granny flats, and guest houses in residential areas
contained in Table 17.24.040, driveway widths contained in Section 17.24.050(b) and adding a
definition of guest house to Section 17.34.010.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 97- - Blue Page 7
A. Ordinance No. 97- - Blue Page 10
Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 15
R:~STAFFRFI'X348PA97.PCI ll/7/97mf 6
ATTACH2VfENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 97-
R:\;STAFFRFrX,.MSPA97.PC1 11/7/97 mf 7
ATTACHMENT NO. I
RESOLUTION NO. 97-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF TABLE 17.06.030,
TABLE 17.24.040 AND SECTION 17.34.010 OF THE
TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING TO
PERMITTED USES FOR GRANNY FLATS AND GUEST
HOUSES, PARKING STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY
UNITS, SECOND UNITS, GRANNY FLATS AND GUEST
HOUSES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, DRIVEWAY WIDTHS
CONTAINED IN SECTION 17.24.050(b) AND ADDING A
DEFINITION OF GUEST HOUSE
WItEREAS, on November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the
General Plan;
WItEREAS, on January 25, 1995, the City of Temecula City Council adopted the City's
Development Code;
WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend the Development Code;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, the County
Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of
Commerce; and,
WItERF. AS, a public hearing was held on November 17, 1997, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF
T'EMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE ENTITLED: 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF T~i.BLE 17.06,030, TABLE
17.24,040 AND SECTION 17.34,010 OF THE TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT CODE
PERTAINING TO PERMITTED USES FOR GRANNY FLATS AND GUEST HOUSES,
PARKING STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, SECOND UNITS, GRANNY
FLATS AND GUEST HOUSES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, DRIVEWAY WIDTHS
CONTAINED IN SECTION 17.24,050(b) AND ADDING A DEFINITION OF GUEST
HOUSE" THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM ATTACHED TO THIS
RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A.
R:\STAFFRFrL~8PA97.PCI 1I[7197mf 8
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of November, 1997.
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 17th day of
November, 1997 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFP, PTX348PA97.PC1 11/7/97mf 9
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO. ~7-
R:XSTAFFRFI~48PA~7.PC1 ll/7/W/mf 10
EXHIBIT A
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING PORTIONS OF
TABLE 17.06.030, TABLE 17.24.040 AND SECTION 17.34.010
OF THE TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT CODE PERTAINING
TO PERMITtED USES FOR GRANNY FLATS AND GUEST
HOUSES, PARKING STANDARDS FOR MULTI-FAMILY
UNITS, SECOND UNITS, GRANNY FLATS AND GUEST
HOUSES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS DRIVEWAY WIDTHS
CONTAINED IN SECTION 17.24.050(b) AND ADDING A
DEFINITION OF GUF~T HOUSE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ~. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
A. That Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and
administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations by cities to implement such
general plan as may be in effect in any such city;
B. That there is a need to amend the Development Code to protect the public health,
safety and welfare; and
C. That this Ordinance complies with all applicable requirements of State law and local
ordinances.
Section 2.
follows:
Table 17.06.030 of the Development Code is hereby amended to read as
A. Add the following uses to Table 17.06.030 (Schedule of Permitted Uses,
Residential Districts):
Description of use ItR VL L--1 L--2 LM M H
Granny Flat p p p p p p 3 p 3
Guest House p p p p p p 3 p 3
B. Add the following language to the end of Table 17.06.030 (Schedule of Permitted
Uses, Residential Districts): "3. Allowed only with a single-family residence."
R:XSTAFFP, FrX348PA97.PC1 11/12/97mie 11
Section 2. Table 17.24.040 of the Development Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
A. Revise the listing for multi-family residential from Table 17.24.040 - Parking
Spaces Required to read as follows:
Description of Use
Required Number of Spaces
Multiple family residential - 3 or fewer
bedrooms (12 or less units)
2-5 units: 2 covered spaces/unit, plus 2 guest
spaces
6-12 units: 2 covered spaces/unit plus 3
guest spaces
Multiple family residential - 13 or more
units)
1 covered parking space plus I/2 uncovered
parking space for 1 bedroom (or less) units
i covered parking space plus 1 uncovered
parking space for 2 bedroom units
2 covered parking spaces and ~h uncovered
parking space for three bedroom (or more)
units plus 1 guest space/6 units, with a
minimum of 4 guest spaces
B. Add the following language to Table 17.24.040 (Parking Spaces Required):
Second Unit
1 covered parking space for 2 bedroom units
or less, 2 covered parking spaces for 3
bedroom units or more
Granny Flat
1 uncovered parking space. The Community
Development Director can waive this
requirement if proof is provided that the
resident is unable to drive a car and a
commitment is made by the owner to
provide the required parking space when the
unit is occupied by a person who can drive.
Section 3.
as follows:
Section 17.24.050(13) of the Development Code is hereby amended to read
A. Replace the first sentence in Section 17.24.050.B. 1 with the following: "When
fire apparatus access is required, the minimum driveway width shall be twenty feet (20') for one-
way traffic and twenty-four feet (24') for two-way traffic. Otherwise the minimum driveway
width for a one-way driveway shall be fourteen feet (14')."
B. Rename Section 17.24.050.B.2 to read: "Residential Uses (two units or less)".
R:\STAFFP, FTL~SPA97.1>C1 I1/12/97mf 12
C. Add a new Section to be known as 17.24.050.B.3 to read as follows: "Residential
Use (three to five units). When fire apparatus access is required, the minimum driveway width
shall be twenty feet (20') for one-way traffic and twenty-four feet (24') for two-way traffic.
Otherwise the minimum width for a driveway shall be twenty feet (20')."
D. Amend the minimum driveway width in existing Section 17.24.050.B.3 (to be
renumbered 17.24.050.B.4) to indicate that driveway widths shall be twenty feet (20') for one-
way traffic and twenty-four feet (24') for two-way traffic."
Section 4.
follows:
Section 17.34.010 of the Development Code is hereby amended to read as
A. Add the following Language to Section 17.34.010 (Definitions and Illustrations of
Terms) of the Development Code:
.... Guest House" means an additional unit to a primary residence on a parcel zoned
for single-family residence, attached or detached, which may be utilized by guests
of the primary residence for sleeping purposes only, and does not contain cooking
facilities which require outside venting per the Uniform Building Code, and does
not exceed eight hundred square feet in area."
Section 5. Environmental. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that
although the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a
Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 6. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or Section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty
(30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The
City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this
Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption
of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, th.e City Clerk shall publish
a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
R:\STAFFRP'B348PA97.PC1 ll/12/97raf 13
Section 8. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED this ~ day of ,
199__.
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 9__ __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a
regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199__, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the day of , by the following roll call vote:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
June S. Greek, City Clerk
R:\STAFFRF1X348pA97.PC1 llt'7/97mf 14
ATTACttlVIVNT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:XSTAFFRFrLMSPA~/.I>C1 llD/97mf 1~
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose approval
is required:
Planning Application No. PA97-0348
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92590
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner (909) 694-6400
City-wide in the residential districts
Same as No. 2
Multiple residential designations
Multiple residential designations
Amendment to Chapter 17.24 (Table 17.24.040) of the
City's Development Code, pertaining to parking
requirements and driveway width requirements for multi-
family residences, second units, granny fiats and guest
houses and an amendment to Chapter 17.34 of the
Development Code, adding a defmitinn of guest house
N/A
None
R:XSTAFFRFrX.MSPA97.FCI 11/7/97mf 16
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] 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
f ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
[X] None
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation, I fred that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the
environment, and a NEGATiVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Si ture Date
pm~tted~Namf~4°~
R:\STAFFBgPA97.PC'l llFl197mf 17
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCE~
1. LAND USE AND PI_A_N1NI~G, Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan desi~natinn or zoning?
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c. Bc 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 of an established
community (including low-income or minority community)?
2, POPULATION AND HOUSING, Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official re~ional or local population
projects?
b. Induce substantial 8rowth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. du'ouSh project in an undeveloped area
or ex~eusinn of major infrastructure)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially a~ordabie housing?
3, GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS, Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involviug?
a. Fault rupture?
b. Seismic {]round shaking?
c. Seismic 8round failure, including liquefaction?
d. Seiche, tsunamj, or volcanic hazard7
e. Landslides or mudflows?
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, ~rading or fill?
g. Subsidenceoftheland?
h. Expansive soils?
i. Umque geolo~c or physical features?
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, &ainage patterns, or the
rate and mount of surface
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[3
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
ix]
Ix]
[x]
ix]
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
ix]
[x'l
R:~STAFFRFTL~SpA97.FCI 11/7/97mf 18
ISSUES AND SUPFO RT/NG INFOP, MATION SOURCES
b. Exposureofpeopleorpropertytowaterrelatedhazards
such as flooding?
c. Dischargeintoanrfacewatersorotheraltcrationofsurface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidSty)?
d. Changes in the mount of sorface water in any water
body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g. Altereddirectionorrateofflowofgroundwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors?
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result In:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b. Hazards to safety ~'om design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d. Insuffmientparkingcapacityon-siteoroff-site?
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
[]
(l
(1
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Sig~'~nt
L-npact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
(]
[1
[x]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
[xl ..
[x]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[:x]
[:x]
R:\STAFF~SPA97.PC1 I1/7/97mf
~ Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals
and birds)?
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
Locally designated natural eommunities (e.g. oakfurest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e. Wildlife dispersal or m/gration corridors?
8. ENERGY AND MII'q'ERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and ineffmient
manner?
c. Resultinthelossofavailabilityofaknownmineralresource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. Ariskofaeeidentalexplosionorreleaseofhazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d. Exposureofpeopletoexistingsourcesofpotentialhealth
hazards?
e.Increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush,
grass, or trees?
Impact
[]
[]
[3
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
ix]
[x]
[x]
ix]
[x]
Ix]
Ix]
R:\STAFFRPTX34SpA97.FC1 ll~197mf 20
ISSUE.] AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b, Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection7
c. Schools?
d. Maintenance ofpublicfaallities, inchidingroads?
e. Other governmental services?
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
c. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTIfl~TICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c. Create light or glare?
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
14.
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
Pq
[x]
[x]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
Pq
[]
[x]
R:\STAFFRtrI~48PA97.FCI llfi197 mf 21
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
c. Affect historical resources?
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. herease 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 seif-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or aremat community, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plent or animal 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 goals?
C,
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects).
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on hmman beings, either
directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None.
Sisnme~
Impact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[l
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[l
[l
[1
[]
[]
[l
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
NO
[xl
[x]
Ix]
[xl
Ix]
[x~
[x]
Ix]
Ix]
R:~STAFFRIrI~4SPA97.PCI llfi/97mf 22
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Based upon the analysis contained in the Initial Environmental Study, an Amendment to Chapter
17.24 (Table 17.24.040) of the City's Development Code, pertaining to parking requirements for
multi-family residences, second units, granny flats and guest houses and an amendment to Chapter
17.34 of the Development Code, and driveway widths contained in Section 17.24.050(tt) and
adding a definition of guest house of the City's Development Code will not have an impact to the
environment in the following areas: Land Use and Planning, Population and Housing, Geologic
Problems, Water, Air Quality, Transportation/Circulation, Biological Resources, Energy and
Mineral Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Aesthetics,
Cultural Resources and Recreation.
Based upon analysis of existing parking conditions, as well as research of other municipalities,
staff has determined that the amendments to the Development Code will not result in any impacts
to the environment and no mitigation measures will be required.
R:\STAFFRIrI'LMSPA97.PCI 11/7/97mf 23