HomeMy WebLinkAbout022398 PC AgendaIn compliance with the America~ whh DleabFnks Act, If you need epecial aeeietance to part/ctpcta in th~'
meeting, please contact the office of the Community Development Department at (909) 694-6400.
Notilloatjon 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to en~ure
ecceee[bility to that mating [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
February 23, 1998, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
Reso Next In Order #004
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
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0409 (Development Plan)
Rocky Liuzzi
The west side of Commerce Center Road, adjacent to
Murrieta Creek (Assessor's Parcel Number 921-400, 058,
059).
To construct and operate a 71,978 square foot Self-
Storage facility including an office and manager's
residential unit on a 2.71 acre site for Murrieta Creek Self
Storage.
Negative Declaration
Patty Anders
Jert7 A!egria
Continue
3. Case No:
Planning Application No. PA97-0431 (Development Plan)
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
Four-Sher Development
East side of Business Park Drive, north of Rancho
California Road, within the Rancho California Business
Park
To construct and operate two two-story industrial
buildings, one totaling approximately 38,289 square feet
and another totaling approximately 28, 713 square feet
Negative Declaration
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Annie Bostre-Le
Approval
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
Next meeting:
March 2, 1998 - Regular Planning Commission meeting
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM #2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
,~,,5 -7
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
February 19, 1998
Planning Application No. PA97-0409 - Development Plan for the design and
construction of a 71,978 square foot self-storage facility with a resident
manager's unit and office building, and associated parking and landscaping
located on the west side of Commerce Center Road, adjacent to Murrieta Creek.
This application has been continued to the March 2, 1998 Planning Commission hearing due to
determination of Flood Control for the permitted uses within the 130' flood control easement
along the west side of the property, adjacent to the Murrieta Creek.
R:/PLANNING\409PA98.MIiM 2/19/98pa
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT ~ PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 23, 1998
Planning Application No. PA97-0431 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA97-0431;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0431; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning
Application No. PA97-0431 based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Four-Sher Development
REPRESENTATIVE:
Charles J. Sher, Principal
PROPOSAL:
To construct and operate two two-story, tilt-up industrial
buildings, one totaling approximately 38,289 square feet and
another totaling approximately 28,713 square feet
LOCATION:
East side of Business Park Drive, at the intersection of Single Oak,
north of Rancho California Road, in the Rancho California Business
Park
EXISTING ZONING:
LI - Light Industrial
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
LI - Light Industrial
SC - Service Commercial
LI - Light Industrial
LI - Light Industrial
PROPOSED ZONING:
LI - Light Industrial
R:\STAFFR~T~431PA97.FC 2~19/98 vgw
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP - Business Park
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Isomedix building and other industrial buildings
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant and industrial buildings
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Total Site Area:
Building Footprint:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
3.59 acres 156,380 sq. ft.
61,652 sq. ft., 39.5% Floor Area: 67,002 sq. ft., 42.8%
31,276 sq. ft., 20.0%
63,452 sq. ft., 40.6%
136 Vehicles, 7 Bicycles, 1 Motorcycle
146 Vehicles, 10 Bicycles, 4 Motorcycles
28 feet
BACKGROUND
A pre-application submittal for the project was made on May 28, 1997, with staff providing
comments on this submittal to the applicant at the pre-application meeting on June 11, 1997.
The formal application submittal was completed on December 18, 1997. A Development
Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on January 8, 1998. The project was deemed
complete on February 3, 1998.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the design, construction and operation of 67,002 square feet of
industrial space and associated improvements such as hardscape, parking, landscaping and
roadways. Hardscape improvements include: walkways, driveways, parking areas and drainage
facilities. Landscape improvements include: parking lot, planting areas, and street scape. The
project is being constructed speculatively to meet the demand for mid-size industrial users.
ANALYSIS
Access. Traffic and Circulation
The project takes access by three driveways from Business Park Drive, with the southernmost
driveway already existing. Handicapped accessibility from the existing meandering sidewalk
is proposed via four walkways, each to the main entrances at both ends of the two buildings.
A circular access drive accommodates the six truck loading docks which are located in the rear
of both buildings. The project is designed with ample circulation for customers, employees and
truck traffic.
R:\STAFFKF1M31PA97.PC 2/19/98 vgw 2
Site Design
With loading and unloading activities concentrated at the rear of the site, the project provides
an attractive streetscape with a minimum 36 foot building setback from face of curb. The
design will preserve the existing parkway of trees, turf and mounding as well as add additional
planrings and monumentation to match the theme established for the business park.
The site design can accommodate the future realignment of Business Park Drive proposed to
tie into Diaz Road near the south boundary of the project site. The applicant's engineer has met
with the City's Engineering staff in order to draft a feasible intersection design that will not
affect the location of buildings or the amount of parking spaces on the project site.
Architecture
The applicant's architect has designed the buildings to fit the changing width of the project
site, offering an interesting frontage of building indents and shadows, with a predominant use
of blue-green glass. Building reveals and accent colors are carried around to all four sides of
the structure.
Landscaoing
Continuous planters along the building sides break up the massing. Perimeter landscaping
includes existing planrings and additional shrubs to fully screen, shade and enhance the site.
In order to construct the two additional driveways, ten eucalyptus and seven plum trees will
be removed. As replacement, the applicant's landscape architect proposes twelve 36" boxed
trees at key visual locations along the building entrances and in front of the loading docks. The
applicant has blended existing plantings, both onsite and surrounding the site, with new
planrings that are in scale with and accent the proposed buildings.
Floor Area Ratio
At a floor area ratio of 42.8%, the project exceeds the target of 40%, but is within the range
of 40 to 150% for business parks. According to the General Plan, it is the intent of the
Business Park designation to "develop well designed business and employment centers that
offer attractive and distinctive architectural design, innovative site planning, and substantial
landscaping and visual quality." It is staff's opinion that the project meets this intent. The
City's Development Code provides industrial incentives that allow for an increase in the floor
area ratio, where the Planning Commission may consider certain factors in determining whether
an increase in the intensity is justified. These factors could include the applicant's plan to meet
the demands of mid-size industrial users, the exceptional architectural and landscape design
amenities which reflect an attractive image and character for the City, or the applicant's
willingness to work with the City's Engineering staff to design the realignment of Business Park
Drive. The applicant Charles Sher has submitted a letter to the Planning Commission dated
February 3, 1998 addressing his request for consideration, which is included in this staff report
as Attachment No. 5.
R:',STAFFP, PT~31PA97,PC 2/19/98 vgw 3
Correspondence Received
No public response to the Notice of Public Hearing has been received either by phone or mail
regarding this project.
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, warehousing, distribution and corporate office
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 as proposed meets all requirements of the General Plan and Development Code.
The architecture and site design is consistent with and enhances the quality of existing
buildings within the Rancho California Business Park. Landscaping is proposed to screen and
heighten the attractiveness of the site, blending existing and new plantings. Any potentially
significant environmental impacts have been reduced to insignificant levels by the mitigation
measures contained in the Conditions of Approval.
FINDINGS
The project is in conformance with the General Plan and with all applicable requirements
of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project meets the intent and is
consistent with the Business Park designation of the General Plan. The project is also
consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Mt, Palomar Lighting Ordinance) and the City's
Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
The project is consistent with the LI - Light Industrial Zoning on the site, which permits
manufacturing, warehousing, distribution and corporate office uses.
The development of the site is designed for the protection of the public health, safety
and welfare. The project complies with the development standards of the LI - Light
Industrial zone adopted to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the
community.
The project is suitable for the site because it accommodates all structures, right-of-way,
parking, landscaping and circulation for the site.
R:\STAFFP, PT~431pAg"/.PC 2/19/98 vgw 4
An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has been determined that although
the project could have a significant impact on the environment, these effects are not
considered to be significant due to the mitigation measures contained in the project
design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been
previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. There are no native
species of plants or vegetation at the site, nor any indication that any wildlife species
exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can
be made for this project.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 20
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 37
Exhibits - Blue Page 44
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C General Plan Designation
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations A, B
F. Landscape Plan
G. Grading Plan
Correspondence Received - Blue Page 50
A. Sher letter dated February 3, 1998
R:\STAIq:rRIrF~431PAeYT,I~2 2/19/98 v~v 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
R:\STAFFRFIM31PAg?.PC 2119198 vgw 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA97-0431 {DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE TWO TWO-STORY, TILT-UP INDUSTRIAL
BUILDINGS, ONE TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 38,289
SQUARE FEET AND ANOTHER TOTALING APPROXIMATELY
28,713 SQUARE FEET, ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 3.59
ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BUSINESS PARK
DRIVE, AT THE INTERSECTION OF SINGLE OAK, NORTH OF
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, IN THE RANCHO CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS PARK, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
921-020-076
WHEREAS, Four-Sher Development filed Planning Application No. PA97-0431
(Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0431 (Development Plan) was processed
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-
0431 (Development Plan) on February 23, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0431 (Development Plan);
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. Findines. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. PA97-0431 (Development Plan) makes the following findings; to wit:
The project is in conformance with the General Plan and with all applicable
requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project
meets the intent and is consistent with the business park designation of the
General Plan. The project is also consistent with Ordinance No, 655 (Mr.
Polomar Lighting Ordinance) and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
provisions.
R:\STAFFP, PT~31pAg?.PC 2/19/98 vffw 7
The project is consistent with the LI - Light Industrial Zoning on the site,
which permits manufacturing, warehousing, distribution and corporate office
uses.
The development of the site is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare. The project complies with the development
standards of the LI - Light Industrial zone adopted to protect the public health,
safety and welfare of the community.
The project is suitable for the site because it accommodates all structures,
right-of-way, parking, landscaping and circulation for the site.
An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has been determined that
although the project could have a significant impact on the environment,
these effects are not considered to be significant due to the mitigation
measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval
added to the project.
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare
species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The
project site has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape
installed on site. There are no native species of plants or vegetation at the
site, nor any indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves
as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this
project.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a
Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 4~ Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. PA97-0431 (Development Plan) to construct and operate
two two-story, tilt-up industrial buildings, one totaling approximately 38,289 square feet
and another totaling approximately 28,713 square feet, located on the east side of Business
Park Drive, at the intersection of Single Oak, north of Rancho California Road, in the Rancho
California Business Park, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-020-078 subject to
Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part
hereof,
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this twenty-third day of February,
1998.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
R:\STAFFP, FI'~31PA97.PC 2119/gg vgw 8
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 twenty-third
day of February, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAI~,PT~I31PA97.PC 2119/98 vgw 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0431 - Development Plan
Project Description: To construct and operate two two-story, tilt-up industrial
buildings, one totaling approximately 38,289 square feet and another totaling
approximately 28,713 square feet
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
921-020-076
February 23, 1998
February 23, 2000
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight
Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code
Section 21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said
forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning
Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to
attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval
of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board
or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning
the Site Plan which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations
period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo.,
including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall
promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought
within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the
action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect,
or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its
officers, employees, or agents.
R:\STAFFRPT~31PA97.PC 2119198 vgw 11
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it
shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is
thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "D" Site
Plan approved with Planning Application No. PA97-0431, or as amended by these
conditions.
5. A minimum of 136 parking spaces shall be provided.
6. A minimum of 5 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "El
Elevations for Building A," "E2 Elevations for Building B," the color elevation exhibit
and the color and materials board approved with Planning Application No. PA97-
0431, or as amended by these conditions.
Landscaping shall be provided in substantial conformance with Exhibit "F" Landscape
Plan, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall
be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is
determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall
have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into
conformance with the approved landscape plan.
9. The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer.
10.
An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage shall be required prior to the
issuance of building permits for installation. Additional information shall be required
in order to complete review, including colors and materials used, line of sight
clearance for driveways, dimensions, lighting, and design considerations as required
by the Building Department.
11.
Within seven (7) days after the approval of this project, the applicant shall submit to
the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic
color prints of the Color and Materials Board. All labels on the Color and Materials
Board shall be readable on the photographic prints.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
12.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24, Habitat Conservation
of the Temecula Municipal Code by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that
ordinance.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
13.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape and
irrigation plans.
R:~STAFFRIrlM31PAg'/.PC 2/19198 vgw 12
14.
15.
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.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller
than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking
space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking
space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking
space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a
conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than
17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces
not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued
for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's
expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at
or by telephoning
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.
16.
Any tenant use must be deemed consistent with permitted uses in the light industrial
zone, and all of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with, prior to occupancy.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
17.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and
Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of City
Ordinance No. 655 regarding light pollution.
18.
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.
19.
Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
20.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
21. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
R:\STAFFRPT~431PA97.PC 2/19/98 vgw 13
22. The occupancy classification of the proposed use shall be B/F-2.
23. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,
1994)
24. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
25. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
26. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
27. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior
lighting, fire alarm systems.
28. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the
1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
29. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
30. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on
plans submitted for plan review.
31. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
32. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal.
33. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap
accessibility.
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
34. 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.
35. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City
right-of-way.
R:~STAFFRPT~31PA97.PC 2/19/98 vgw 14
36.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of
Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
37.
A 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.
38.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the
grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City
Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
39.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report
shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
40.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources
Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI)
has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt.
41.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
42.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to
the subject property.
43.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for
offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of
Public Works.
44.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's
check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area
drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already
been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
R:~TAFFRPT~31PA97.PC 2/19/98 vgw 15
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
45.
Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of Temecula Standards subject
to approval by the Department of Public Works. 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.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No.
207A.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
46.
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.
47.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction
Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
48.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code
and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
49.
The developer shall record an Offer of Dedication of street right-of-way for Business
Park Drive (Principal Collector Highway Standards - 78' R/W) to accommodate the
realignment of Diaz Road.
50.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to
object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or
a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed
Western Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer
shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
51.
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
R:\STAFFRPT~31PA97.PC 2/19/98 vgw 16
52.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans
and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
53.
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.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions
regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
54.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed
by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy and use and
Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
55.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per UFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-IIFA-1. The
developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2750
GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. The required fire flow
may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction
type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau.
(UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill. A)
56.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per UFC
Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants
(6" x 4" x 2-2 Y2" outlets) shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public
streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 400 feet apart and shall be located no more than
225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an
hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the
system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2,
and Appendix Ill-B)
57.
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved
Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or
any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be
an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of
.25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15)
58.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen
(13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15)
59.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review. Plans shall be: signed by a
registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and
conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the
plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire
R:\STAFFRP'B431PA97.PC 2/19/98 vgw 17
Prevention Bureau for signatures. 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 an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and
National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 )
60.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings
shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building.
The numerals shall be minimum twelve (12} inches in height for buildings and six (8)
inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses
shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15)
61.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage
and type of construction, occupancy or use, the developer shall install a fire sprinkler
system. Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval
prior to installation, (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15)
62.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement
for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire
alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station.
Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation.
(UFC Article 10)
63.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall
be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be
located to the right side of the main entrance door, The Knox-Box shall be supervised
by the alarm system. (UFC 902.4)
64.
Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled
combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety
features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class
and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains,
Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing
high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions Uniform Fire Code Article
81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (UFC Article 81)
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
65.
Prior to installation of the street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes
first, the developer shall pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of
arterial street lights into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program.
OTHER AGENCIES
66.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated December 29, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
67.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula
Police Department's transmittal dated January 5, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
68.
69,
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated December 6, 1997,
a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated February 2,
1998, a copy of which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant's Signature
R:\STAFFRPT~431PA97.1~C 2/19/98 viw 19
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRPT~31PA97.PC 2119198 vgw 20
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:
Planning Application No. PA97-0431 (Development
Plan)
City of Temecula
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, (909) 694-6400
East side of Business Park Drive, north of Rancho
California Road, within the Rancho California Business
Park
Four-Sher Development, 990 Highland Drive, #202, Solana
Beach, CA 92075
LI - Light Industrial
LI- Light Industrial
To construct and operate two two-story industrial buildings,
one totaling approximately 38,289 square feet and another
totaling approximately 28,713 square feet
The project is located in a partially developed business park
with vacant lots as well as similar light industrial uses as
the proposed project in similar buildings as the proposed
project. The project is located in an area that has been
previously graded, street improvements have been installed
and water and sewer are in the vicinity.
Riverside County Departments of Environmental Health
and Flood Control and Water Conservation, Southern
California Edison, Southern California Gas, General
Telephone, Rancho California Water District, Eastern
Municipal Water District, Temecttla Valley Unified School
District, Temecula Cornmumty Services District.
R:\STAFFRFIM31PA97.PC 2/19/98 vgw 21
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[X] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[X] 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:
[l
[xl
[]
[]
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated."
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
R:\STAFFRFIM31PA97.PC 2/19/98 vgw 22
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORA~ATION SOURCF~
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 policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(Some 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
commumty (including low-income or minority commumty)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections?
Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6 and Source 4)
b. Seismic ground shaking? (Source 1, Figure %l, Pg. 7-6 and
Source 4)
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source 1, Figure 7-2, Pg. 7-8 and Source 4)
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or fill?
g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Pg. 68 and )
Source 4)
[] ~] [] []
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [1 [~
[1 [1 ~] []
[] [] ~1 []
[] [] [] [~
[] [x] [] [1
[] [x] [] []
[] ~] [] []
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [1 [~
[] ~] [] []
[] [x] [1 []
R:\STAFFRPlM31PA97.PC 2119198 vgw 23
Patmblly Line Tbsa No
a~r~.~ s~f~ant lmpaa
h. Expansive soils?
I. Unique geologic or physical features?
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, draniagc panems, or the
rate and mount of surface runoff? [ ]
b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (Some 1, Figure 7-3, Pg 7-10)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d. Changes in the mount of surface water in any water
body7
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. Altereddirectionorrateofflowofgroundwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies7
(Source 2, Pg. 263)
S. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 3,
Pgs. 6-10 and 6-11, Table 6-2)
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in cliHlste?
d. Creato objectionable odors?
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
[] [~ [] []
[] [] [] [~
~] [] []
[] [] [] [~
[] Ix] [] []
[] [] Ix] []
[] [] [x] []
[] [] ~1 []
[] [1 [~ []
[] [] [x] []
[] [] [1 [~
[] [] [1 [~
[1 [1 [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
R:XSTAFFP, FI!431PA97.PC 2/19/98 vgw 24
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
NO
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
(Source 1, Page 3-29)
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Source 5,
Table 17.24(a), Pg. 17-24-9)
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Source 5, Chapter 17.24, Pg. 12)
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result In impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, aremats
and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3)
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3)
c. Locally designated natural commumties (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3)
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)?
(Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3)
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration coredors?
(Source 2, Page 141, Figure 19)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and mefficiem
manner?
c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
[] [] Ix] []
[] [] [] [~
[] [1 [] [~
[] [] [1 [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [1 [1 [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[1 [] [1 [~
[] [] [1 [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [1 [X]
[] [] [] [~
[] [] ~] [1
[1 [1 [] [~
R:~TAFFRFIM31PA97.PC 2/19198 vgw 25
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATXON SOURCES
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticidcs,
ehermeal or radiation)? (Some 1, Figure 7-5, Pg. %14)
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The eation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d. Exposure ofpeople to existing sources ofpotential health
hazards?
e.Increase fire hazard in areas with timable brush,
grass, or h-~es?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels? (Source 5, See. 17.08.080)
b.Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels?
(Source 1, Figure 7-5, Pg. 7-14)
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 protection?
c. Schools?
d. Maintenance ofpublic facilities, including roads?
e. Other governmental services?
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new aystems or supplies,
or subatantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [~ []
[] [] ~] []
[] [] [~ []
[] [] ~] []
[] [] Ix] []
[] [] ~] []
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [x]
[] [] [] [x]
R:XSTAFFRPTX431PA97.PC 2119198 vgw 26
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFOR/dATION SOURCES
slplr~=t
d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Pg. 39-40)
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste disposal?
g Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or seeme highway?
b, Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c. Create light or glare? (Source 5, Sec. 17.08.080)
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Sottree 2,
Figure 55, Page 280)
b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 2, Figure 56
Page 283)
c. Affect historical resources? (Source 2, Page 281)
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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 self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or anunal commumty, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [x] [] []
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [~ []
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
R:~STAFFKPT~31pA97.K? 2/19198 vgw 27
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 advene effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly7
[] [] [] [~
17. EARI,1YR ANALYSES. None.
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. Fault Hazard Investigation by EnGEN Corporation dated August 5, 1997
5. City of Temecula Development Code.
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
R:',STAFFRPT~.31PA97.PC 2/19/98 v~w 28
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I snd Use and Planning
The proposed project is designed to be consist with the General Plan and Zoning designation of Light
Industrial (LI). There are a wide range of uses pursuant to the City of Temecula Development Code
Chapter 17.08 which may ha permitted m the two proposed speculative buildings. Vcri~cation that each
tenant's use is consistent with the Development Code is required prior to the issuance of a Certificate
ofOccupancy. With mitigation measures mplace, no significant impacts are anticipated.
l.b.
The project will not conflict with applicable environmemal 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 LI (Light Industrial). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were
analyzed m 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 EIK will be applied to this
project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportumty to
comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the
project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The project site has been previously
graded and services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any environmental effects
on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant
effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
The proposed project is compatible with surrounding light industrial uses within the Rancho California
Business Park where the site is located. No significant impacts are anticipated.
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established commumty (including
low-income or minority community). The project site is vacant. There is no established residential
coramunity (including low-income or minority commumty) at this site. Furthermore, the site is a
industrially zoned property that does not allow residential developments. No significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Population and Hou~in, g
The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project
floor area ratio falls within the range of development intensity/density standards outlined in the General
Plan. However, it does exceed the floor area ratio target established for its zone by .028. Since the
project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and is intended to serve the needs of the existing
residents, the proposed development will not be a significant conu'ibutor to population growth which
will comulatively exc_-__~__ offmial regional or local population projections. Less than 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
consistentwiththeGeneralPlanLandUseDesignationofLightInduslrial. The project will may likely
cause people to relocate to or within Temecula, but due to its size in the impact is not considered to be
significant.
The project will not displace any type of housing. The project site is vacant, industrially zoned property;
therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:XSTAFFRFr~31PA97.PC 2119198 ~ 29
Geologic Problems
f,g~n.
The pwject may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground
failure, erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and
expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active, and
is located within the Elsinore Fault Zone, near the Mumeta Creek Fault and in the vicinity of the
Wildomar Fault. A Fault Hazard Investigation was prepared August 5, 1997 to determine potential
geologic and seismic hazards within the 3.6 acre site. The investigation included literature research,
aerial photograph review, field mapping and subsurface investigation. No indications of faulting on the
subject property were found during this study. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated
through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Soils reports
will contain recommendations for the compae~on of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially
significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failore (including liquefaction),
erosion, changes in topography or unstable soft conditions fxom excavation, grading or fill and expansive
soils. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction
phase of the project and the project may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion
control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-m, hardscape
and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Modification to topography and
ground surface relief features will not be ennsidered significant since modifications will be consistent
with the surrounding development. Potemial 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.
3.d
The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunmm or volcanic hazard. The project is not located
in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of
this project.
3.e
The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact Report
for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on
the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.i.
The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or
physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Water
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate end mount 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 nmoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated
through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately
handle runoffwhich is created. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result f this project.
4.b.
The project will not have a impact to people or property to water related hazards such as flooding
because the project site is not located in a flood zone or floodway. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
4.c.
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
R:~STAFFRPT~431PA97.I~C 2119198 vgw 30
(NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Boar& 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.
The project will have a less than significant impact m 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
nmoffwill occur bec__~use previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of
buildings, accompanying bardscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional
amount of drainage will not be considered significant.
4.f-h.
The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aqulfer 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, conswuction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact
on ground waters.
4.i.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water otherwise
available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that
they can aecormnodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate
proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by Rancho Califorma Water District
(RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and
the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation. The project at 67,002 square feet is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality
unpact (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 nor is it anticipated that the project will generate pollutants. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project,
The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The
limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this
area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.d.
The project may create objectional odors during the coustmction phase of the project. These impacts
will be of short duration and are not considered significant. The project is designed to meet the
requirements of the Development Code and its environmental standards.
Trartsportation/Circulation
The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic
congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in
existing volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Ynez
Road and Winchester Road. The applicant will be required to pay development impact fees that will
be nsad to address the need for traffic signals and public facilities.
R:XSTAFFRPT~431PA97.PC 2/19/98 vgw 31
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 f~atures. The project has also
been designed to accornmedate the futur~ realignment of Business Park Drive to intersect with Diaz
Road, thereby enhancing traffic safety in the business park. 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
designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No significant impacts arc
anticipate~l as a result of this project.
6.d.
The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site because its design is in compliance with the
City's Development Code pafidng requirements. As a result, off-site parking will not be impacted. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barriers to
bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. The applicant shall provide bicycle racks and
motorcycle spaces for the eonvemance of employees and customers who chose alternative transportation.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The
proposed development does not impede the utilization or development of policies supporting alternative
modes of transportation. The design of the project includes spaces for motorcycles and bicycles. 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
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 tmique, 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
barfier to the migrafion ofanimals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the
Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the
effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
7.b.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are
protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the
City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on
site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural commumties. 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.
R:\STAFFRFIM31PA97.PC 2/19/98 vgw 32
7,e.
The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does
not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project,
Energy and Mineral Resources
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. There will be an increase in the ram of use of any natural resource
during construction (construction mamrials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) as well as the
depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural
resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
The project will not result in the loss of avail ability 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.
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 mateddais. 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 subnuttal. This applies
to storage and use of hazardous materials. No sigmficant 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 end 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 heard. The project
will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws dunng the plan check stage. No permits
will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.d.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards
are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
9.e.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with ~ammablc brush, grass, or trees.
The project is in an area that has been mass graded and development already exists to the west and
north. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRFIM31PA97.PC 2/19/98 vgw 33
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 {his
project would be similar to or less than the existing condo project to the east and the day care facility
to the north, and proposed commercial uses in the munediate area. Less than significant noise impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term.
10.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short
run). Construelion machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which
is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady g-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.
Public Services
ll.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 conWibute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities.
ll.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.
ll.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 Temeeula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of
roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered
significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses.
11 .e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Utilities and Service 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 curren~y 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.
R:\STAFFRFTx.431PA97.PC 2/19/98 vgw 34
12.d.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary
,sew~ systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems,
the Final Envh'onmental Impact Report ffEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and
RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in theh' services areas (p. 59)."
The FEIR further states: "implementa~on of the proposed General Plan would not signi~canfiy impact
wsstewater serviws (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 system 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 fi'om 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 supphes. Reference response 12.d No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
Aesthetics
13.a.
The project will not have an impact on a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in
an area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b.
The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The site is in an area of existing light
indnsmal uses, as well as adjacent vacant property that is of similar zoning. The design review process
of the proposed development has mitigated the potential significant visual impacts to the adjacent
developments through compliance with the Development Code and through the use of colors and
landscaping that are compatible with existing construction in the area. 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). After mitigation, no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
14.a-
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.
R:\STAFFRFIM31pA97.PC 2/19/98 vgw 35
14.c.
The project will not t~stxict existing religious or sacred uses within th~ potential impact at~a. No
religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impa~ts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Recreation
15.
The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities. The project w~l not cause significant numbers of people to relocate
within or to the City of Temecula, but will primarily serve the needs of the existing residents. 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 U'ue for the quality or quantity of existing recreational
resources or opportunities,
R:XSTAFFRFI~431PA97.PC 2/19/98 vgw 36
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAFFILrIM31PA97.PC 2/19/98 vF 37
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA97-0431 (Development Plan)
Land Use and Planning
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Dept:
Conflict with general plan designation and zoning.
Verification that each tenant's use is consistent with the
Development Code.
Review of land uses permitted in the light industrial zone.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Business
License.
Planning Department
Geologic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Dept.:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial
grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a
registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety
Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Dept.:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the
Uniform Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety
Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
R:~TAFFRPT~31pA97.pC 2119/98 v~w 3~
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Dept.:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Dept.:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Dept.:
General Impact:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of
Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the
Development Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the
Planning Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Department.
Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground
shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows,
expansive soils or earthquake hazards.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial
grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a
registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department.
Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground
shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows,
expansive soils or earthquake hazards.
R:\STAFFRFIM31PAcJT.PC 2/19/98 v~v 39
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Dept.:
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the
Uniform Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department
for approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department
Water
General impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Dept.:
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage
patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff.
Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not
negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage
conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will
be included on the grading plans.
Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public
Works for approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Dept.:
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality {e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity).
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with
City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
R:\STAFFRP'B431PAg?.PC 2/19/98 vgw 40
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fees for road improvements and
traffic impacts.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.O6 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Department.
Biological Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Dept.:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat,
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat
habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
Energy and Mineral Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Dept.:
Affect upon energy conservation plans.
Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining
conservation.
to energy
Submit energy calculations and pertinent data for review.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Department
R:\STAFFP, PT~31PAg?.PC 7J19/98 vF Jr],
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Dept:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools.
The project will incrementally increase the need for additional
school facilities. However, the project will contribute its fair share
to the construction of school facilities.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified
School District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered
governmental services regarding fire protection. The project will
incrementally increase the need for fire protection; however, it will
contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision.
Payment of Development impact Fee for Fire Mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public
facilities, including roads.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements,
traffic impacts, and public facilities.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Department.
R:\STAFFRF1M31pA97,pC 2/19/98 vgw 42
Aesthetics
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Dept.:
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and
glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory.
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No.
655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for
approval,
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
R:\STAFFRPT~431PA97.PC 2119198 v~v 43
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFP, PT~31PA~7.PC 2/19/98 vgnv 44
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0431 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: February 23, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
~P
SC~, ~,~ ~ os J
pI
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0431 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: February 23, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0431 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: February 23, 1998
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
4 <~.,./
~1x /
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0431 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E I - Building A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: February 23, 1998
ELEVATIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0431 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E 2 - Building B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: February 23, 1998
ELEVATIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXISTING PERIM~FER PLANlING
WATg~ COHSE~VATIOH Pt.AN
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0431 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT F LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: February 23, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0431 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT G GRADING PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: February 23, 1998
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CORRESPONDENCE
50
F( ~ ! l R - SH ER 1 ~ EVELO PM ENT COM I' A N Y
990 Highland Drive, Suite 202. Solana Beach, California 92075 (619) 792-8800 Fax (619) 792-1332
February 3. 1998
Planning Commissioners
City of Temecula
Re: PA 97-0431
Dear Commissioners:
It is with great pleasure that Four-Sher Development Company submits to you our third major
industrial development project in the City of Temecula within the last eighteen months.
The Temecula Business park will consist of two attractive concrete tiltup buildings featuring
blue reflective glass, a crisp white exterior and extensive landscaping. These buildings are
designed to accommodate higher end users who will employ wage earners on the upper scale,
Our site coverage is 39.5% based on the building footprints. When adding in the second floor
area, the floor area coverage of the site is 42.8%. Utilizing second floor for additional square
footage allows us to use a smaller building footprint which in turn creates more landscaping
and a more open feeling to the project.
We request you grant approval of our project as submitted for the following reasons:
1. The project is above average in its' architectural design
2. The project will provide additional landscaped areas due to a smaller building
footprim.
3. As a result of the location and amenities above, the project should attract higher-end
users resulting in a benefit to the community.
We look forward to cominue our excellent relationship with the City and bring more quahty
projects to Temecula.
Very truly yours.
Charles J. Sher
General panner
m
In ~ompience with the Arnedcane with Dbabilitiee Act, if you need special assistance to particFpate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the Community Development Department at {9091 694-6400.
No6fication 48 hours prio~ to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements To ensure
acceesibllffi/to that meeting [28 CFR 35,102.35.104 ADA Title II]
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
February 23, 1996, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
Reso Next In Order #004
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
ACTION:
APPROVED 4-0, GUERRIERO ABSENT
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA97-0409 (Development Plan)
Rocky Liuzzi
The west side of Commerce Center Road, adjacent to
Munieta Creek (Assessor's Parcel Nmnber 921-400, 058,
059).
To construct and operate a 71,978 square foot Self-
Storage facility including an office and manager's
residential unit on a 2.71 acre site for Murrieta Creek Self
Storage.
Negative Declaration
Patty Anders
Jerry Alegria
Continue
CONTINUED TO MARCH 2, 1998
Case No:
Planning Application No. PA97-0431 (Development Plan)
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Four-Sher Development
East side of Business Park Drive, north of Rancho
California Road, within the Rancho California Business
Park
To construct and operate two two-story industrial
buildings, one totaling approximately 38,289 square feet
and another totaling approximately 28, 713 square feet
Negative Declaration
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Annie Bostre-Le
Approval
APPROVED 4-0, GUERRIERO
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINESS
Next meeting:
March 2, 1998 - Regular Planning Commission meeting
ADJOURNMENT
R:XWIMBERVCi\PLANCOM]MT~GEHDAS\5-6-96 2/24/98 vF
701-16 2