Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030298 PC Agendafn ceqienee with the ~ with I)kekliee Act, If you need special aeebtance to participate in this meeting, illale contact the offi(~ of the Community Development Deplvlment at (909) 694-6400. Noelkaeon 48 houfe prior to · mee~lg will enable 1he City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure acceulbHIty to that meedng [28 CFR 36.102.35.104 ADA Title II] CORRECTED AGENDA 2-27-98 CALL TO ORDER: TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 2, 1998, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecule, CA 92390 Chairman Fahey Reso Next in Order #005 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 vour name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Approval of Minute from February 2, 1998 and February 23, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 3. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Plan Amendment end Zone Change) City-Initiated South of State Highway 79 South, east of Pala Road Cleanup General Plan Amendment end Zone Change changing the designations from Office to Service Commercial end Neighborhood Commercial, end from Neighborhood Commercial to Service Commercial. Negative Declaration Carde K. Donahoe Recommend Continuance Off-Calendar m Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA97-0409 (Development Plan) Rocky Liuzzi The wet side of Commerce Canter Road, adjacent to Murrteta Creek (Assessor's Parcel Number 921400, 058, 059). To construct and operate a 71,978 square foot Self- Storage facility including an office and manager's residemiel unit on a 2.71 acre site for Murrie~a Creek Self Storage. Negative Declaration Patty Andera Jerry Alegria Approve m Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmentel Action: Planner: Case Engineer: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA98-0014 (Development Plan) Tameke Advertising Inc. A Development Plan for a 17,420 square foot office/manufacturing building with associated parking and landscaping, On the south side of Zevo Drive, east of the intersection of Zevo Drive and Winchester Road, known as Parcel 26 in the Westside Business Park. Negative Declaration Patty Andere Annie Bostre-Le Approve PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS Next meeting: March 16, 1998 - Regular Planning Commission meeting ADJOURNMENT ITEM #2 MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 2, 1998 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2, 1998 CALL TO ORnER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:03 P.M., on Monday, February 2, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerdero, Miller. Slaven, and Chairwoman Fahey (arrived at 6:06 P.M.). Absent: Commissioner Soltysiak. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Principal Engineer Parks, Attorney Cudey, Senior Planner Hogan, Associate Planner Fagan, Assistant Planner Anders, and Minute Clerk Ballreich. Because Chairwoman Fahey had not yet arrived, Vice Chairwoman Slaven presided over the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS NoRe. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved for the approval of the Agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey had not yet arrived and Commissioner Soltysiak absent), 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 6. 1997. and January 5. 1998 MOTION; Commissioner Guerdero moved for the approval of the October 6, 1997, Planning Commission minutes as wdtten. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey had not yet arrived and Commissioner Soltysiak absent). Teme~ula Pinning Commission February 2. 1998 MOTION: Commissioner Guerdero moved for the approval of the January 5, 1998, Planning Commission minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slaven and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Chairwoman Fahey had not yet arrived and Commissioner Soltysiak absent). SELECTION OF A PI ANNING COMMISSIONER TO MEET WITH A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION Commissioner Guerdero offered to serve in this position. Chairwoman Fahey arrived at this time and proceeded with presiding over the meeting. 4. STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES Associate Planner Fagan presented the staff ropod (as per agenda material) and referenced letters and phone cells received by the Planning Department staff with regard to this issue, which addressed safety, aesthetics, and City involvement. Based on the overwhelming community input supporting the current Ordinance (to prohibit long- term parking/storage of recreational vehicles in front yards of residential zones), Chairwoman Fahey advised that staff is requesting direction from the Commission as to whether or not to change the existing Ordinance. Beceuse the addition of a Code Enforcement Officer would require budget adjustments, Ms. Fahey noted that this matter would not fall within the Commission's purview and would have to be discussed by the City Council. Reviewing the available options, Chairwoman Fahey requested, by way of show of hands, that the audience members express their suppod for one of the following options: retain the existing Ordinance as is with stdcter enforcement (No. 1) eliminate the Ordinance and resort to Homeowners Association regulating the rules (No. 2) modify the section of the Ordinance which permits temporary on-site storage (No. 3) By a show of hands, the majodty of the audience members supported Option No. I - to retain the existing Ordinance - and the minority of the audience members supported the remaining options. Although this matter is not a scheduled public hearing, Chairwoman Fahey noted that public input would be welcomed. Although the issuance of citations would create a fine structure, Chief Building Official Elmo informed the Commissioners that the City Council is reviewing the adoption of an Ordinance establishing administrative procedures and penalties for violations of the Temecula Municipal Code, noting that collected fines would be forfeited to the City instead of the Distdct Court. Temecula Plannir~ Commission February2. 1998 It was noted that the use of administrative citations is viewed as a conservative measure and that voluntary compliance would thoroughly be exhausted prior to pursuing the issuance of citations because of the associated costs. With regard to temporary on-site storage of recreational vehicles, Commissioner Miller suggested that the applicable Section be reduced from five consecutive days to three consecutive days in order to coincide with the Vehicle Code. In order to propedy address this situation and in light of the Citys continual growth, Commissioner Slaven recommended the hiring of an additional Code Enforcement Officer. Because the language in the older and established CC&Rs does not properly define recreational vehicles, Ms. Slaven relayed her opposition to requiring a Homeowners Association to resolve this issue. As per speaker cards, Chairwoman Fahey, at this time, welcomed public input from the following individuals: Marie Dunn 30156 La Primavera (did not speak; concems were addressed during Commission discussion.) Marcia Watkins 30152 Villa Alturas Robert Fischer 30166 Villa Alturas Frank Geyer 40466 Chauncey Way Bill Gray 40414 Yardley Court Betty Condran 40741 Calle Katedne Jim Porter 40221 Tuolomne Court - did not speak; (did not speak; concems were addressed during Commission discussion.) Jack Leathers 42623 Remora Street Dereld Hansen 30398 Senela Place John Dedovesh 39450 Long Ridge Drive - did not speak; (did not speak; concems were addressed during Commission discussion.) Dwaine Lewis 40461 Calle Medusa Joanne Phillips 30361 Tradewater Court - did not speak; (did not speak; concems were addressed during Commission discussion.) Leo LeBlanc 44041 Quiet Meadow Road Zillah Rodgers 32124 Corte Carmona Melvin Merks 32121 Corte Carmona - did not speak (did not speak; concerns were addressed during Commission discussion.) Paul Knowles 40769 Calle Katefine (submitted pictures reflecting his cencems.) The above-mentioned individuals noted the following issues/concerns with regard to the storage of recreational vehicles: individuals should be permitted a certain amount of on-street parking time for RVs to accommodate for visitors, loading, unloading, etc.; safety concems- vehicles blocking the sidewalk, driveway, and as well obstructing street visibility; individuals should utilize a storage facility; current enforcement needs to be enhanced; 3 Temecule Pinnine Commission Februanf 2. 1998 requiring a Homeowners Association to resolve the issue would not be appropriate considering that some developments do not have an active Homeowners Assodation; future opening of Lake Domenigoni will furlher impact this situation; aesthetically unpleasing and, therefore, has a negative impact on neighboring property values; storage of such vehicles diminish the natural and man-made beauty of the City; stdcter enforcement should be imposed and then clearly publicized; any storage on City streets should be limited to three days, preferably less. Based on the public input and considering the existing Ordinance, Chairwoman Fahey noted her reluctance to amend the existing Ordinance. Concurring with Commissioner Slaven's suggestion to hire an additional Code Enforcement Officer. Commissioner Guerdero as well commented on the impact the Domenigoni Valley Reservoir will have on the City with regard to the storage of recreational vehicles. Mr. Guerriero spoke in support of the existing Ordinance but recommended that it be more restrictive, commenting on the time and money expended by the City each time a vehicle is tagged only to be moved two or three feet further down the street. Concurring with the noted safety and visibility concerns, Commissioner Slaven reiterated her suggestion to hire an additional Code Enforcement Officer and to impose stdcter provisions on the Ordinance. With regard to temporary on-site storage of recreational vehicles, Commissioner Miller relayed his support to reduce the allowable five-consecutive-day limit to no overnight stays. It was the consensus of the Commission that the existing Ordinance not be amended and that it be enforced. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council. 5. DIRECTOR'S HEARING UPDATE No additional comments. 6. RFBELRENTS Planning Manager Ubnoske reviewed wdtten material (of record) and requested Commission input with regard to site plan, area compatibility, etc.; and advised that the lot of discussion is currently zoned Service/Commercial and that the proposed request would be conditionally permitted in the Service/Commercial zone. Temec, ula Plennirm C.;rnmieion Febrdarv2.1998 Although the Southside Specific Plan has not been completed, Senior Planner Hogan advised that the preliminary stages of this Plan seem to indicate that the area south of Sunrise Market will be zoned Highway/Tourist. In light of her existing concam with the compatibility of surrounding properties in the area of discussion, Chairwoman Fahey, echoed by Commissioners Guamera and Slaven, expressed concam with the proposed request and how it may further impact an already existing compatibility issue. Viewing a color rendering of the proposal, Commissioner Slaven noted that once the upcoming improvements to the interchange have been completed, the area of discussion will serve as a main entrance into Old Town and, therefore, further relayed her objection to the proposal because of the compatibility issue. PI a. NNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE Senior Planner Hogan advised that staff is requesting that this item be continued to the March 2, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to continue PA97-0237 to the March 2, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerdero and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Commissioner Soltysiak absent). PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0398 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) Planning Commission consideration for the design, construction, and operation of a 8,684 square foot restaurant with associated parking and landscaping on 1.51 acres. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that the Commission adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0398; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0398; and adopt Resolution No, 98-002. RESOLUTION NO. 98-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPUCATION NO. PA97-0398 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT A 8,684 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT WITH TWO OUTDOOR PATIOS OF 1,185 SQUARE FEET WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, LANDSCAPING, AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON A 1.51 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA AND YNEZ ROADS KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 944-330-011. Temecula Plannino Commission Februant 2, 1998 Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff report (as per agenda matedal of record) and referenced the additionally imposed condition by the Public Works Department (that the vehicular movement for the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho Highland ddve will be restricted to dght in/dght out/left in upon the completion of the Ynez Road Ultimate Improvements [Duck Pond PW97-17CSD]). At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing. Mr. Bill Green, representing the applicant, thanked staff for their time and efforts associated with this project and relayed the applicant's concurrence with the staff report and the recommended conditions of approval With regard to the compatibility of the proposed structure relative to the existing structures, Mr. Green, for Chairwoman Fahey, advised that the proposed use will comply with the standards of the approved 1989 Specific Plan. With regard to the architectural compliance of the structure, Mr. Green commented on the varied architectural designs throughout this particular area. Ms. Sandy Deering, 10171 Constitution Ddve, Huntington Beach, applicant, provided a brief history of the applicants and their long-term association with Made Callender's. Mr. Sam Alhadeff, 27555 Ynez Road, representing the applicant, informed the Commissioners that he was available to address any issues of concem. Having diligently worked with the Planning Department staff as it relates to the architecture of the proposed structure, Mr. Stan Uchizono, architect representing the applicant, commented on the applicant's desire to create an anchor building for the surrounding area, advising that appropriate landscaping as well as appropdate color usage of materials will further incorporate the neighbodng hotel and as well address any massing concorns. In response to Commissioner Miller, Mr. Uchizono bdefly reviewed the proposed color of the roof tile. In light of the already existing traffic concems at the Rancho Califomia/Ynez Roads intersection, Commissioner Slaven questioned how the approval of this project would further impact this issue. In response to Commissioner Slaven's request as to whether the applicant would be willing to tie the occupancy permit with the completion of the intersection improvements, Mr. Green advised that neither the schedule nor the plans for the improvements have been approved and, therefore, noted the difficulty with tying these improvements to the occupancy permit. As a new resident to the City of Temecula, Ms. Sharon Coffee, 32199 Calle Avella, commented on the City's need for additional restaurants; expressed her support of the proposed architectural design; and commented, from personal experience, on the amount of community involvement/community support these particular applicants have extended to the cities in which they are located. Temecula Pinning Commission Febflaw 2. 1998 By way of a rendering, Principal Engineer Parks descdbed the peak hour volumes, circulation. improvements, tuming movements, and the widening and upcoming improvements to Ynez Road, noting the following: that a traffic signal on the east side of Ynez Road will be installed in conjunction with the other required improvements; that access will be limited at Rancho Highland Drive to dght in/right out/ left in; that a lighted intersection at Rancho Highland Drive would not be feasible nor practical considering its close proximity to Rancho California Road. Although this project is not the culpdt of the existing traffic problems at the Rancho Califomia/Ynez Roads intersection, Commissioner Slaven noted that the applicant should not be hindered by this already existing problem. Ms. Slaven reiterated her concem with the existing traffic condition and commented on the volume of individuals that to travel through this particular intersection. In response to Commissioner Slaven's concern, Pdncipal Engineer Parks noted that the project will contribute less than 5% increase to existing traffic volumes at the Ynez/Rancho California Roads intersection. Advising that improvements are being made to accommodate the City's current growth, he stated that the proposed project has been conditioned to pay a frontage fee for half of the raised median on Ynez Road and to complete the sidewalk along Ynez Road prior to occupancy. In the event the required improvements were not completed prior to the opening of the restaurant, Mr. Parks. for Chairwoman Fahey, advised that the project would not have a significant impact on the intersection compared to the existing condition and that it would not change the existing level of service. Commissioner Slaven reiterated her concem that the proposed project would further worsen an already congested intersection. In response to Commissioner Slaven, Commissioner Guerriero noted that once Rancho Highland Ddve improvements are completed, a substantial amount of the traffic associated with tuming movements would be eliminated. Since the proposed project will have a maximum impact of 3.9% on the intersection, Commissioner Miller stated that the existing traffic problems are not applicable to the proposed request. Although she spoke in support of the architectural design, Chairwoman Fahey noted that it will not be compatible with the hotel and encouraged the use of adequate landscaping to further minimize the transition between the two structures. Assistant Planner Anders advised that the applicant has worked with the City's contracted landscaping architect to ensure an appropriate landscaping transition between the two structures. In light of the fungus problem associated with the Califomia Sycamore tree, Commissioner Slaven encouraged the applicant to utilize another tree. Ternecula Pinning Commission Febrdanf 2, 1998 Pdndpal Engineer Parks bde~y referenced the additionally recommended condition as requested by the Public Works Department (that the vehicular movement for the intersection of Ynez Road and Rancho Highland drive will be restricted to right in/dght out/left in upon the completion of the Ynez Road Ultimate Improvements [Duck Pond PW97-17CSD]). MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to dose the public hearing and to approve staff's recommendation with the addition of one condition as recommended by the Public Works Depadment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerdero and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Commissioner Soltysiak absent). PLANNING APPLICATION NOS, PA96-0258 (REVISED VESTING TRACT MPA NO. 24182 AND PA96-0259 (REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP) Planning Commission consideration of a revision to Vesting Tentative Tract Map Noa. 24182 and 24183. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission make a Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified and findings that a subsequent EIR is not required; and to adopt Resolution No. 98-003. RESOLUTION NO. 98-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NOS. PA98-0258 AND PA96-0259 (REVISIONS TO VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 24182 AND 24183, RESPECTIVELY) LOCATED GENERALLY NORTH WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 79 (S), WITHIN THE PALOMA DEL SOL SPECIFIC PLAN AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 950-002-013, -020, -021, -022, -023, -024, AND -025. Project Planner De Gange presented the staff report (of record) and recommended that the following verbiage be deleted from recommended condition nos. 21 g and 21 h: .., that the improvements shall be constructed pdor to occupancy. Mr. Tim Day, 22690 Cactus Avenue, Moreno Valley, representing the applicant, concurred with the staff report as well as the recommended conditions of approval. MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to close the public hearing and to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Commissioner Soltysiak absent). Temecula Plannlrm Commit, lion Fet)~Jarv 2. 1998 PJ ~,NNING MANAGER'S RFPORT In light of Commissioner Soltysiak's absence, it was the consensus of the Commission to defer discussion with regard to changing the Planning Commission's meeting date. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION A. Commissioner Guerdero requested that a joint meeting with the City Council be scheduled. B. Commissioner Guerdero commended Commissioner Slaven on her representation of the City and the Planning Commission at a recent Planning Commissioners' Workshop. C. Commissioner Miller requested that staff address the number of posted flags located at the Texaco Station on Front Street. ADJOURNMENT At 8:14 P.M., ChainNoman Fahey formally adjourned this meeting to Mondav. February 23. 1998. at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Linda Fahey, Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 23, 1998 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 23, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular session at 6:03 P.M., on Monday, February 23, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, and Chairwoman Fahey. Absent: Commissioner Guerdero. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Principal Engineer Parks, Attorney Curley, Project Planner Donahoe, and Minute Clerk Ballreich. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was noted that a continuance had been requested for Agenda Item No. 2 to the March 2, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved for the approval of the Agenda as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Commissioner Gueniero absent). Ternecula Plannina Commission PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0409 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) A request 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. RECOMMENDATION To continue the item to the March 2, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. (Continued; see page 1.) Febmaw ;23. 1998 3. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0431 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) A request to construct and operate two two-story industrial buildings, one totaling approximately 38,289 square feet and another totaling approximately 28,713 square feet. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Commission approve the request as conditioned. Project Planner Donahoe presented an overview of the staff repod (as per agenda material), addressing access, traffic, cimulation, site design, realignment of Business Park Ddve with Diaz Road, architecture, landscaping, and floor area ratio. Ms. Donahoe addressed the Department's support of the project; advised that staff had received no public responses with regard to the project; and noted that an Environmental Assessment had been conducted. At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing. Advising that the proposed project would be his third major industrial development project in the City, Mr. Chades Sher, 990 Highland Drive, #202, Solana Beach, applicant, briefly referenced the adiculation of the proposed building; commented on the City's need for additional buildings of this size; and noted that the use of a second floor adequately achieved the desired square footage but minimized the size of the building in scale to the size of the site. MOTION: Commissioner Soltysiak moved to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0431; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0431; to adopt Resolution No. 98-004; and to amend the Findings to reflect the Commission's approval of the 42.8% floor area ratio in light of the applicant's use of a second- story structure in an effort to create a smaller footprint as well as the exceptional architecture and landscape design of this project. Temecula Plannina Commission Febmaw :23. 1998 RESOLUTION NO. 98-004 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Slaven and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Commissioner Guerriero absent). Commissioner Miller thanked Mr. Sher for developing another quality project in the City of Temecula. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT A. Planning Manager Ubnoske referenced a recent City Council Workshop and noted that the City Council has expressed an interest in scheduling a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. No objection was noted to meeting on either the first or third Tuesday of the month. B. Planning Manager Ubnoske congratulated Chairwoman Fahey and presented her with the City's five-year pin. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION A. Commissioner Miller advised that he had met with Mr. Larry Markham and the developer of the senior facility on Pala Road. In light of his discussion with them, Mr. Miller encouraged staff to thoroughly address the traffic issue in this particular area prior to it being discussed at the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT At 6:21 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey formally adjourned this meeting to Monday, March 2, 1998, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve. Linda Fahey, Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ITEM #3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 2, 1998 Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe and David Hogan RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue this case off-calendar PROPOSALS: To amend the General Plan designation for the site from Office and Neighborhood Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial, in accordance with Exhibit A; and To change the Zoning Map for the site from Professional Office and Neighborhood Commercial to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-1). LOCATION: East of Pala Road, south of State Highway 79 South PROJECT STATUS: This item was originally noticed and heard at the December 15, 1997 Planning Commission hearing, at which time the Commission requested that staff review the matter further. Staff had prepared additional information and an alternative proposal for the January 5, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. However, the case was continued to the next Commission meeting of January 26, 1998, in order to address issues raised regarding the right-of-way along Pala Road. The January 26, 1998 meeting of the Commission was canceled and this case was brought forward to the February 2, 1998 meeting. Based upon the Commission's discussion, staff recommended that this case be continued off-calendar until a review of design options for Pala Road were completed and impacts were discussed with the affected property owners. However, Larry Markham, representing one of the property owners, requested thirty days in which to address the concerns of staff, and the case was thus continued to March 2, 1998. Staff has held several meetings to discuss this case. Staff continues to recommend that this case be taken off-calendar until such time that the Pala Road right-of-way issues can be resolved. The Circulation Element of the General Plan is currently under review, and the Pala Bridge Widening Project is in process. It is estimated that more information would be available in four to six months. Staff recommends that the case be readvertised for hearing at such time as the project is ready for consideration by the Commission. R:\STAFFRPT\237PA97,PC5 2/24/98 cd ITEM #4 RECOMMENDATION: APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 2, 1998 Planning Application No. PA97-0409 (Devdopmant Plan) Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0409; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0409; and PROPOSED ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING LAND USE: ADOPT Resolution No. 98-__ recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0409 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Mr. Rocky Liuzzi Owen Group, Inc. The design and construction of a 71,987 square foot self- storage facility with a resident manager's unit and office building, and associated parking and landscaping. West side of Commerce Center Drive, adjacent to Murrieta Creek. LI (Light Industrial) North: BP (Business Park) South: LI (Light Industrial) East: LI (Light Industrial) West: OS-C (Open Space Conservation) Not requested BP (Business Park) Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Existing Light Industrial/Office and Drainage Channel Vacant/Warehouse/Industrial Existing Light Industrial/Office/Warehouse Murrieta Creek PROJECT STATISTICS Total Site Area: 2.71 acres (net); 4,61 acres (gross) Building Area: 71,987 Number of Storage Units: 360 Landscape Area: 14,280 Hardscape: 114,500 Parking Area: 1,123 square feet square feet square feet square feet Parking Required: Parking Provided: 4 parking spaces (including parking for Residential Unit) 7 parking spaces (including parking for Residential Unit) Building Height: Residential/Office: Storage Units: Thirty (30) Feet Eleven (11) Feet (Buildings A, B, D, E, H, F and Sixteen (16) Feet (Buildings C and G) BACKGROUND Planning Application No. PA97-0409 was submitted to the Planning Department on November 26, 1997. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on December 23, 1997. The project was initially scheduled for the February 23, 1998 Planning Commission and was continued to the March 2, 1998 hearing because of unresolved issues with the Flood Control District. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A Development Plan request for the design, construction and operation of a 69,359 square foot self storage facility with 360 units, a residential manager's unit and office building of 2,628 square feet (71,987 square feet total) with associated parking (including recreational vehicles) and landscaping on two parcels totaling 2.71 acres (net). The project complies with the Development Code requirements subject to lot coverage, floor area ratio, landscaping, height and setback requirements. A standard public notice package was sent out to properties within a 600' radius and staff has received with no letters or calls of opposition to the project. ANALYSIS Site Design The project is proposed on two separate panhandled parcels on the west side of Commerce Center Drive. There is adequate circulation throughout the site and proper turning radii between the buildings. There are five (5) parking spaces near the office building and two spaces in the attached garage of the residential unit. The site has one point of ingress and egress for security purposes, and there is a twenty (20) foot drainage easement down the center of the site from the east to west property line (see site plan). Landscaping is also being proposed along the panhandle portion of the access drive, near the residential manager's unit/office building, in the front parking stalls, and between buildings H and D adjacent to the 20' drainage easement which will be visible as you enter the site. The project proposes approximately 14,280 square feet or 7.11% of landscaped area. The applicant is providing more landscaping than is required for self-storage facilities, as there is no minimum landscaping percentage. Staff feels the proposed landscaping will create a nice statement with the landscaped access drive, and the landscaping at the parking stalls and between buildings H and D. The project is located on two adjacent parcels. To simplify the future development of the site, the applicant has agreed to merge the two parcels. As a result, the applicant will be required to get approval of a parcel merger prior to issuance of a building permit. The site is located adjacent to Murrieta Creek channel. There is also a tributary drainage channel to the north and a 130 foot wide drainage easement that runs along the entire western property line adjacent to Murrieta Creek. The applicant is proposing to use most of the easement area for the storage of recreational vehicles. However, there are some questions regarding the actual ownership of the easement. The applicant is working with the Flood Control District to determine the ownership of the easement, and if it can be utilized for the proposed recreational vehicle parking and landscaping. Staff has met with the City Attorney who indicated that it is the applicant's responsibility to work out the ownership and use issues with the Flood Control District. The City Attorney has stated that this issue should not hold up the Commission's consideration of the proposed development outside of the easement. Any proposed use of the easement area by the applicant is being undertaken at the applicant's own risk until ownership and permitted use types are resolved. The applicant is working on an agreement with the Flood Control District to determine what type of access width is necessary and the permitted uses within the easement. If it is determined that Flood Control does not currently own the right to the easement, staff expects that they will secure the legal rights to easement. Flood Control is requesting an unobstructed 35 foot setback from the top of the bank for access along the Creek. The Flood Control District has also indicated that they would allow the applicant to utilize the area outside the 35 foot setback area for vehicle parking and storage. The proposed site plan has been designed to be completely functional without the use of any part of the 130 foot wide drainage easement. Final resolution of this issue is expected to occur over the next few months. A condition of approval has been added to allow the Planning Manager to approve any necessary modifications to the site or landscape plans that may result from the resolution of this issue. Architecture The self-storage facility is designed to be compatible with both the existing and future anticipated warehouse, industrial, manufacturing and office uses. All storage buildings are proposed to be concrete block construction with a white stucco exterior. All storage buildings and exterior walls that are highly visible will be detailed with split-face concrete and precision concrete block finish that result in two accent grey colors to add visual interest and articulation (see colored elevations). This includes the west elevations of buildings G, C, the north elevation of buildings G and F, and the walls on the east and north elevations. The metal roll up doors of the storage buildings and other man doors are a teal color to add color and interest to the overall design. The metal gutters, down spouts and front security fence in also proposed as teal. The roofs of the storage buildings are galvanized metal. The columns on the west elevation of buildings C and G which will be visible from the west are also articulated with the split-face, two accent grey colors to add architectural detail to the storage units. There is a wrought iron security gate at the entrance to the development. The wrought iron fence around the 130' easement is proposed to be a teal color. However, staff has requested that the fence be black wrought iron so that the teal color does not overpower the development. The manager's unit/office building is a two story, two bedroom/two bath unit with a grey, composition shingle roof, and a white stucco exterior. The front or east elevation of the manager's/office building is detailed with a split-face concrete and precision concrete block finish that results in two grey accent colors. As proposed, the project is a quality design that will be compatible with the existing structures in the immediate vicinity in terms of design, colors, materials, height, and bulk and mass. 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). Self-storage facilities 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. R:~STAFFRPT~I09PA97.1'C 2/26/98 pa 4 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is a Development Plan request for the design, construction and operation of a 69,359 square foot self storage facility with 360 units, a residential manager's unit and office building of 2,628 square feet (71,987 total square footage) with associated parking (including recreational vehicles) and landscaping on a 2.71 acre (net) site. FINDINGS The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. m 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 proiect, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby adopted. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 initial Study - Blue Page 21 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 39 Exhibits - Blue Page 47 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C. Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Elevations G. Color and Material Board ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- PC RF-~OLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0409 A DEV~I~OPMENT PLAN REQUF~T TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 71,987 SQUARE FOOT SELF-STORAGE FACHJTY VaTH A RESIDENTIAL MANAGER'S UNIT AND OFFICE BUHXHNG WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 2.71 ACRES (NET) LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COMMERCE CENTER ROAD, ADJACENT TO MURRIETA CREEK, AND KNOVVN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-400-058 AND 059. WHEREAS, Mr. Rocky Liuzzi filed Planning Application No. PA97-0409 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Cede; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0409 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Planning Application No. PA97- 0409 on February 23, 1998, from the duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to March 2, 1998; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97- 0409 on March 2, 1998, at a duly noticed public heating as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon 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. PA97-0409; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA97-0409 makes the following findings; to wit: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City 's Development Code, R:\STAFFRIvr~409pA97.PC 2126198 p, 7 Ordinance No. 655 (bit. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare of the community. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, and will not be detrimentxl to the community. C. The project is consistent with the LI - Light Industrial Zoning on the site, which permits mini-warehouses, manufacturing, distribution and corporate office uses. Section 3. ]~.nvironmenf~l Corrtpliance. 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby adopted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA97-0409 for the design and construction of the design and construction of a 71,987 square foot self-storage facility with a resident manager's unit and office building with associated parking and landscaping, on a parcel containing 2.71 acres (net) located and known as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 921400-058 and 059 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section S. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTF. B this 2nd day of March, 1998. Linda Fahey, Chairman I BEliEBY 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 2nd day of March, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:~STAFFRPT~409PA97.PC 2/26/98 It~ 9 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:%STAFFRPT~409PA9'7.PC 2/26/98 Im ] 0 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA97-0409 (Development Plan) Project Description: A request for the design and construction of a 71,987 square foot self-storage facility with a resident manager's unit and office building with associated paring (including recreational vehicle} and landscaping on a parcel containing 2.71 acres (net) located on the west side of Commerce Center Road, adjacent to Murrieta Creak. Asseasor's Parcel Nos. 921-400-058 and 059 Approval Date: March 2, 1998 Expiration Date: March 2, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar (Sl,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA97-0409 (Development Plan). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is sought and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. m 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 R:\STAPPRIq"~09PA97.PC 2/26/98 pa ]- ]- 11. diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager. The proposed monument sign shall comply with the approved sign ordinance and shall be no higher than six (6) feet with a sign area of no more than fifty (50) square feet per sign face. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, or as amended by these conditions. All subsequent modifications to the project necessary to accommodate the needs of the Flood Control District shall be approved by the Planning Manager. a. One Class II bicycle rack shall be provided. Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, 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 Ranning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F, or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, or as amended by these conditions (colors and material board). Manager's Unit/Office Stucco Precision Concrete Block Split Face Concrete Block Roll-Up Doors & Man Doors Roof Manager/Office Building Storage Unit Roofs Metal Gutters/Downspouts/Front Security Gate Colors La Habra (X-50 Crystal White) Angelus Block Co. Grey Angelus Block Co. Grey M/W RolI-Lite Teal GAF Timberline Slate Blend (Grey) Galvonized Metal Match RotI-Lite Teal The wrought iron fence at the rear of the property shall be a black color. All walls or decorative features over 6 feet shall be designed by a structural engineer and approved by the Building and Safety Department. All business activities, other than rental of storage units, including miscellaneous or garage sales, and transfer/storage businesses which utilize vehicles as part of the business are prohibited. There shall be no servicing or repair of motor vehicles, boats, trailers, lawn mowers, or any similar equipment. 12. Storage of explosive or hazardous materials is prohibited. R:~STAFFP,,°~/~gPA97.PC 2/26/98 pa 1~ Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 13. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation}. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 14. A Development Impact Fee shall be paid. 15. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid. 16. A parcel map merger application shall be approved and recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. A copy of the recorded parcel merger shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments. 17. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 18. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 19. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager. 20. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 21. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 22. 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. 23. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reftectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: R:\STA~O~PA~7.PC 2r/,6/98 pa ~3 "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 by telephoning 909 696-3000." 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. 24. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Planning. 25. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 26. 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. 27. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 28. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 29. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings will be R-3, M and S-2. 30. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 31. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. Show that all storage units are accessible to the disabled. (Califomia Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). 32. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 33. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 34. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 35. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 36. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. P,:LqTAP~,J~T~09PA97.1~C 2/26/98 pa 37. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 38. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 39. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 40. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. 41. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 42. A preconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 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 43. 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. 44. 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. 45. 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 46. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for review prior to the issuance of any permit within the 130 foot wide drainage easement along the southwest property line. 47. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their Right-of-Way. 48. A Grading Ran 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. R:\STAFFRFY~09PAg?,PC 2/26/98 pa ~-5 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 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. 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. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. 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 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. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 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. 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:\STAFF~PA97.PC ~/26/98 pa ]-6 58. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone A. This project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may include obtaining a Letter Of Map Revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Prior to Issuance of e Building Permit 59. Improvement plans and/or 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: a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at approximately 90 degrees. d. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. e. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for adequate sight distance and visibility. f. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Sewer and domestic water systems d, Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines The Developer shall apply for and obtain approval of a parcel merger between Lots 13 and 14 of Tract 16178-2. A copy of the recorded parcel merger shall be submitted to the Planning Department and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of building permits. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer to have been substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 60. 61. 62. P,:\STA~09pA97,PC 2/26/98pa ].'7 63° 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. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 64. 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 65. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 66. 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. 67. 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. 68. 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-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 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) 69. 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 '~" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than 250 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) 70. if construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) ~:~STAI~mU"r,~091'Ag7.1'C 2/26/98 p, ]8 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shell have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 70,000 Ibs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 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) 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) 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 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) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3) 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 (6) 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) 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) 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) 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) R:'~TAFFRFT~0t~PA97.PC 2/26/98 80. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4) OTHER AGENCIES 81. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated December 15,1997, a copy of which is attached. 82° The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated December 10, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 83. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology, University of California Riverside's transmittal dated December 12, 1997, a copy of which is attached. 84. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula Police Department transmittal dated December 22,1997 a copy of which is attached. 85. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Valley Unified School District's transmittal dated December 12, 1997, a copy of which is attached. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Planning Department approval. Applicant Name R:\STAFFRFI'~409PAcI7.PC 2/26/98 Michael R. McMiltan December 15, 1997 Ms, Patty Anders, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY LOTS 13 AND 14 OF TRACT NO. 16'178-2 APN 92'1400-058, AND APN 92'1-400-059 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0409 Dear Ms. Anders: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 97/SB:eb321/F012/FCF c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor Rancho California Water District County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: December 10, 1997 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner FROM: ~t~fGREGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA97-0409 Department of Environmental Health has received and reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA97- 0409 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. PRIOR TO PI. AN CHECh' SUBMITTAL, "will-serve" letters from the water and sewering agencies will be required. GD:dr (909) 275-8980 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM RWEP~IDE Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside, CA 92521-0418 Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 CULTURAl, RESOURCE REVIEW DATE: ~c~n,~kw¢'- tlttqQ'~ RE: Case Transmittall Reference Designation: f)~ ~'~- O~Oc~ Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have been reviewed to determine if th is project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural ruources and contains or is adjacent m known cultural resource(s), A Phase I study is recommended. Based upon c:dsting data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase 1 study is recommended. A Phase I cultural re, source study (MF # ) identified one or more cultural resources. The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature of the project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not recommended. __ A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. __ There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. If, during construction. cultural resources arc encountered, work should bc halted or diverted in the immediate area while qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations. Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a professional archaeologist. The submission of a culu/ral resource management report is recommended following guidefines for Archaeological Resgurce Management Reports prepared by the Caliiornia Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation planning Bulletin 4(a), December 1989. Phase 1 Phase il Phase Ill Phase IV Records search and field survey Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for 'significant" sites.] Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.] Monitor earthmoving activities COMMENTS: If you have any questions, please contact us. Eastern Information Center ITuesday Dec··bar 23, 1~9Z 3=328 -- Frm ,909506" '9' -- Pa;e 2I ,12/23/1997 15:21 9895862838 TEM~OJ_A R]_ZCE p/9~E 62 City of Temecula Temecula Police Department RE: PA97-0409 l, Fml-stomga lociely with an office end · fetid·at nmnagef's unit en two isgel anpaene lets With respect to toe coneions of approval for the above ref~mdd Frojmot, the Pob re~ommeeebthefolowing 'bwafaty' meesurmbeprevidedineccedenm withCjtyof Temecule Ordbaeces and/or reragnized perme safety mndanin and codes: 1. AppkantaheleeumdlhedgesOnthepfepettymafeue(i~gthepaoJeetelmlbemebtektedet · height no geelet that dity ix (3~) feel·. 2. AppicentshelleemmedVeeesuemueNingthe~lmllngsarekeFtots~steeseas to deet roef actvlV~"l,/by wmdd-be but0hm. 3. AI Faking ares, ddvewey·, end pedestal· web·y· ·hall be imaimtod with · minimum maintained ~ne (1) fem4ade of ight at 0round bvd, eve ribper·d, dminat~g el ahadows. Alextebrightbgfistumsddbevandelfedmnt. Nlextodorlglubgshallbecofitrolledby photordts, dmefB. or Cr~r means to prevent dedmdvalm by uneuthodzed peue~. 4. AB dJeyldliveeyl belweefi st·rage bulk~ 8M be jitpmineted with · minimum meinta/md one (1) foot~.andle of ight at gromd levd, ev~ly dbpetmed, ~ el shadows. E. ADextefiofdomsahalhavethekowevandaimebtanflgMfisteeilstdedebove. Thedoom shall be lumlrmted with · mblfnum enakeaine one (1) fmat candle ef Ight at ground level, eve dispersed. 6. Any pubSc ~ JocBted on the prefnim of the age fadity dd be p(amed in · wel- nghtad, highly vidble ema, and instded wlth m'Cag-Out Only'featee to dete l01tedng. NIImbBc teleplmmmdmuldbepiaaednwl~efromanlranceoflhefMitymneelhemenelemb. 7, AI doors. windows, Jocl~ng mechant0ms. hinges. eod ·the ,,.' ~'~qe0u· bardwe eldl be of eommecisl ex bstjtutjorml grad·. 8- Any grk,';;~; pdnted or metked upofi the premim shell be removed or peinted over within twenty-four (24) houe of being k~eed. 9. Theaddressfe~thebeadoeehadlbelNdntedonthemdusingnumlNnneklsathanfeel4) foet tell, in ee:oJor vAdch¢oedFeBte the lm~kgro4md, ffpledng heddeeB onthe m4d-toF is nol fvaatg4e, any 'bast traydad' ddvewey edJaeent to the ~ is m~.epteble. A Ulkd ~ is any fiatsuffecee4ar, enttotheroefwilhedfidemwoemtopalntthemmlemlouff4]feattel, ina Cokx which co·tram die beckgreund. 10. IfmnystnacturesontheWeldseammovertwofioonbheigM, devdoPefshdlensuathatal roof hal·has ere painted "lntematimml Oqmge*. ITuesdey December 2,1, 1997 3:32;e -- Free °90950~' "~ -* Pale 31 ~2/23/X997 15:21 989586283~ TENEXXLA POLXCE p/kGE 03 11. ,~!et eddrem del be posted ba-eilalk lOcedon, mbimum12bdte~b height, o~lhe $treetddeoflhebulingwi~a~mntemdmJINmkground. 12. The polee delmdme~ ehmll be provided with m 244mur mnegeew~ mmwb eeellexlt gate codetodowofik~ltoreq3m~dtomnyemefgencTddumtbamwNdntheeamposesdwhee meeeeenentienotpfeeefitof~. toINePoblXF .b~. A. AgqueedoamganingbceeHllbesahelberefemidt~lhePeiceD/r-'b,~s~itCdmePreventkm & Plem ~ (909~ 606-2626. CHine Pavedon and Plans Offace TEMECULA VALLEY Unified School District SUPERINTENDENT Patncia B Novotney, Ed,D. BOARD OF EDUCATION Linda Campbell December 12, 1997 Ms. Pat ,ty Anders 43200 Business Park Drive ' Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Planrang Application 97-0409 Dear Ms. Anders: Temecula Valley Unified School District would like to inform the applicant that the proposed mini-storage facility is a commercial development and will be required to pay the commercial square footage rate for school mitigation fees. The portion of the project designated as the resident manager's umt however, will be charged the residential rate. Sincerely, ~(~7coor2i~°~ilities Serv~U~).~eT~ 31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula. CA 92592 / {909) 676-2661 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\STAFFRPT~09PAg?.PC 2/26198 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. planning Application No. PA97-0409 (Development Plan) City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Patty Anders, Assistant Planner (909) 694-6400 Locat_~_ on the west side of Commerce Center Road, adjacem to Murrieta Creek (Assessor's Parcel Number 921-400, 058, 059). Mr. Rick Wallace, OWEN GROUP, 19700 Fairchild, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92612 Business Park (BP) Light Industrial The design and construction of a 71,978 square foot self-storage facility with a two story manager's unit and office building with associated parking and landscaping on a 2.71 acre (net) site. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Other public agencies whose approval is required: To the west of the subject site is the Mumeta Creek, to the east is existing commercial/industrial buildings, to the north is a drainage channel and vacant property that is zoned Business Park. To the south is vacant land that is also zoned Light Industrial. The site has been previously graded; and water and sewer are within vicimty of the project. Riverside County Fire Dep~a'hnent, Riverside County Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Corwpany, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency. R:\STAFFRFIM09PA97.PC 2r26/98 i~ 22 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, revolving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Si_tmificant ]napact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning IX] Hn~nrds [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise [X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services IX] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems [ ] Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fred that although the proposed project could have a si~ni~cant 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. R:~TAFFRFl~409pA97.PC 2t26/98 pn 23 Po~m~ny Mifiption Signifcsnt No 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zomg'? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) b. Conilict with applicable enviromental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cttmulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. WouM the proposal resuR in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault mpture?(Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6) b. Seismic ground shaking? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6) c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Pg. 7-8) d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e. Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soft conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Pg. 68) h. Expansive soils? [ ] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [] Ix] [1 [] [] [x] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [X] [] [x] [] [] [] ~] [] [] [1 pC'] [] [] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [x] [] R:\STAFFRPT~I09PA97.PC 2/26/98 pa 24 Po~mially Significant Pe~nliany Mitigation ~Than S~fi~ No Impact I. Unique geologic or physical features? 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage palIerns, or the rate and amount of surface runo~ Exposure of people or property to water minted hszards such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Pg. 7-10, and Figure 7-4, Pg. 7-12) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currants, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through inmrception of an aquifer by cots or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise avsilable for public water supplies? (Source 2, Pg. 263) 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. 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, moimae or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? [] [1 [l [1 [] [1 [1 [1 [] [] [] [1 [1 [1 [] [1 [1 [] [1 [] [1 [] [1 [1 [] [1 [] [] [] ix] [x] [] [l [] [] [] [1 [1 [] [x] [1 [] [] [] Ix:] [x] [x] [x] ix] [x] [xl Ix] [1 R:\STAPtrRF1Mt~PA97.PC 2/26/98 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Po~mfialJy Signi~cm Pol~liany Unim Mifiptlon Incoq~ora~l l_~ss Than NO Impact 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle h-ips or U-a:~c congestion? [ ] b. Hazardsto safety from design fcatures (c.g. sharp curves or dangerous interaction orincompatiblc uses)? [ ] c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [ ] d. Instiff]cleat parking capacity on-site or off-site? [ ] (Source 4, Table 17.24(a), Pg. 17-24-9) e. H~Tards or barriers for pedestrians or bicychsts? [ ] 1~ Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [ ] (Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Pg. 12) g. Rail, waterborne or air Ira~c 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, annuals and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3) [] [] [] b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) c. Locally designated natural communities (c, g. oak forest, coitstal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3) d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, ripman and vernal pool)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3) [] [] e. Wddlife ctispemal or migration corridors? ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [] [] b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 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? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [1 Ix] Ix] [x] Ix] [x] [x] [x] Ix] Ix] Ix] [x] [x] [] Ix] R:\STAFFRPT~09pA97.PC 2/26/98 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Po~ntlally Significant ,hapact Pmemislly Mitigation l~ss Than Signlfiesat No Impact Impact 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: off, pesticides, chenucal or radiation)? (Source 1, Figure 7-5, Pg. 7-14) b. Possible interference with an emergency ~sponse plan or emergency evacuatien plan? c, The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal rosult in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels? 11. pUBlIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effeet upon, or result in a need for new or siterod government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Malntcnance ofpublicfacilities, including roads? e. Other governmental services? 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for uew systems or supplies, or substantial alterutions to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Pg. 39-40) R:\STAFFRFIM09PA97.PC 2/26198 ps 27 [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [~ [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [x] [] [1 [] [x] [] [] [] [] [x] [1 [] [] [x] [] [] [] Ix] [] [1 [] [~ AND SUPPORTING I]~FORIVIATION SOURCES Po~mlaBy Slgni~cauz ]nxpact inoo~orat~l Impact No e, Storm water drainage? Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supphes? 11 AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vim or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c. Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb paleontologieal resouroes? (Source 2, Figure 15, pg.70) b. Disturb archaeologicalresources? (Source 2, Figure 14, pg. 67) c. Affect historical resources? d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. lncrease the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially redme the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below serf-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ammal community, reduce the number of x~"ict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the pwject have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [1 [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [x] [x] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [x] Ix] Ix] [1 [] [] [] [x] [x] [x] Ix] Ix] R:XSTAPFRIq~09PA97.PC 2/26/98 pa 28 Po~mislly si~nmc~ Poxcmblly Unl~u Mitigation lneotX~ramd L~u Than Significant No Impact Impact c. Does the project have impacts that area kxdividually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulativcly considerable" xncans that the incremental effects of a project are considerable whe~ viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and thc effects of probahlc fixtare projcc~s). d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial sdverse effects on htmaan beings, cither directly or indirectly? 17. EARLH~.R ANALYSES. None. [1 [] [] Ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] Ix] 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. City of Temccula Development Code R:/STAl~FRFI~09PA97.PC 2/26/98 pa 29 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use and Planning 1.8. The proposed self-storage facility is consistent with the Zoning designation of Light Industrial (LI). Self-storage facilities are permitted by right in this zoning classification. 1.b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Ran Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Ran. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The project site has been previously graded and services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.C. The proposed self-storage facility is a permitted use in the Light Industrially zone and is in an area with existing commercial/industrial uses. Therefore, the proposed self-storage facility is not considered incompatible with the existing land use in the vicinity. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.e. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community). There is no established residential community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. Furthermore, the site is a vacant, Light Industrial zoned property that does not allow residential developments. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Population and Housing 2.8. The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is a self-storage facility which is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and is intended to serve the needs of the existing residents, the proposed development will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the underlying zoning of Light Industrial. The project will not likely cause people to relocate to or within Temecula, but will serve the needs of existing residents. Therefore, the project will not induce substantial growth in the area, and no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.c. The project will not displace any type of housing. The project site is vacant Light Industrial zoned property; therefore no housing will be displaced. One residential unit R:\STA~PA97.1~C 2/~/98 pa 30 will be provided for the manager of the site. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Geologic Problems 3. a,b, c,f,h, The project 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 relatively close to the Wildomar Fault Zone. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The aoils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant since modifications will be consistent with the surrounding development. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.d The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.e The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows, The Final Environmental Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.i. The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Water 4.a,d The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design, grading and drainage plans. A previously constructed drainage channel will be upgraded as part of this project. Drainage conveyances for the project will be designed and constructed to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. After R:\STAI~FRPT~409PA97.FC 2/26/9g 1~ 31 mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.b. The project could have a impact to people or property to water related hazards such as flooding because a small portion of the site is located in a flood zone. The entire western portion of the site is adjacent to the Murrieta Creek and is located in the 100 year floodway. Recreational and other vehicles may be stored in this area. In extreme flood events, some loss property may occur in these circumstances. The project will be conditioned to have the finished floors of the buildings to be elevated one (1 ') above the 100 year water surface elevation. Therefore, with the incorporated conditions of approval and mitigation monitoring program, 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 (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.e-h The project is not adding additional fill material and will not change the direction of flows in Murrieta Creek. The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters; however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.i. The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Air Qualitv 5.a. The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project (71,978 square feet of self-storage and manager's unit) is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact (276,000 square feet) established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Page 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~STAPPRIq',~0~PA~7.1~3 .~26/98 pm 32 5.b. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.c. The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.d. The project could create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. Transportation/Circulation 6.8. The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames. The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.c. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d. The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The proposed self-storage facility is not a high-intensive parking use as users drive up to there individual units to load and unload. Staff has determined that there is sufficient on-site parking spaces provided, including two designated spaces for the manager's residential unit. As a result, off-site parking will not be impacted as renters usually drive up to the individual storage units and load or unload. Renters do not typically park at the office and walk to their unit. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.6. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f. The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The proposed development does not impede the utilization or development of policies supporting alternative modes of transportation. 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. R:~STAFFRPT~09PA97.PC 2126/98 ps 33 Biological Resources 7.a. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.b. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.d. The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site or within proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.8. The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Energy and Mineral Resources 8.8. 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 rate of use of any natural resource during construction (construction materials, 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. 8.c. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STA~PA~7.PC 2/26/98 p~ 34 9.s. The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. Large quantities of these types of substances will not be associated with this use. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and the applicant must receive their clearance prior to any plan check submittal. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.8. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is a self-storage development with vacant land to the north and south, and existing commercial/industrial development to the east. Murrieta Creek is immediately west of the subject site. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Noise lO.a. The proposal will result in s less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to or less than the existing development to the east, and the future Light Industrial/Business Park uses that will occur in the immediate area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term. lO.b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRFIM09pA97.PC 2/26/98 pa ~35 Public Services 11.a, b. The project will have a tess than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.c. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula, and therefore, will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.d. The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 11 .e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Utilities and Service Systems 12.a. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.b. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.c. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.d. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Ran states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.e. The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some R:~TAI~FILtri~gPA97.l~C 2/26/98 additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.f. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.g. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ~esthetics 13.a, The project will not have a impact on a scenic vista or scenic highway as the City does not have any designated scenic highways. The project is not located in an area where there is a scenic vista. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b. The project could have a potentially significant demonstrable negative aesthetic affect. The site is in an area of existing Light Industrial and commercial zoned property to the north, south and east. The design review process of the proposed development has mitigated the potential significant visual impacts through ensuring a quality design, the use of similar materials and colors in the area, functional site design, architectural articulation of the exterior walls, heavy landscaping, and limiting the bulk and mass of the structures. The design, site layout and heavy landscaping will provide additional aesthetic enhancement. Moreover, the applicant has worked closely with the City's Landscape Architect to ensure the landscaping from Murrieta Creek to the proposed development will be an appropriate transition from the natural vegetation to developed property. 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 will almost all new development. 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). In addition, all onsite security lighting will be shielded to direct light away from the existing residences. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 14.a- C. The project will not have an impact on paleontological, archaeological or historical resources. The site is not located is areas of sensitivity for archaeological and paleontological pursuant to the General Plan maps (Figures 5-6 and 5-7}. 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:\STAFFILuT~.0~pAeJ7,PC 2,i26/98 pa ~7 14.e. The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15. The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula, 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 true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~ST~'r~09P^9~.~C ~'~s ~,, 38 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:',STAFFRPT'X409PA97,1~C 2/26/98 Mitigation Monitorin~ Program planning Application No. PA97-0409 (Development Plan - Rocky Lin~i) l-~nd Use and Planning General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The proposed use being incompatible with the existing land use in the vicinity. The proposed self-storage is a permitted use type in the Light Indus~al zone. The design review process of the proposed developmere has mitigated the potent!hi significam visual impacts through ensuring a quality design, the use of similar materials and colors in the area, functional site design, architectural articulation of the exterior walls, heavy landscaping, and limiting the bulk and mass of the structures. The applicant shall submit architectural and landscape plans which reflect the approved architectural design and hndscape plan. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Phnning Department. Geologic Problem~ General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from fault rupture. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Deparunent of Public Works with the initial Fading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of Fading and building permits. DeparUnent of Public Works and Building and Safety Department. R:\STAFFRP'IM09pA97.pC 2/26/98 pa 40 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from sei,~mic ground shaking. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit conslruc~on plans to the Building and Safety Depat aaent for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Depat anent Exposure of people or property to 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 shah be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits. Deparlraent of Public Works and Building & Safety Department. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or ~l. 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. Depa, anent of Public Works. R:WrAFFRFIM09pA97.PC 2/26/98 pa General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Sl~ci~c Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, Chan~t:~S in topography or unslable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planling of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code. Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning I)eparlment for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. Exposure of people or property to seismic Found shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Utilize conslruction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit conslzuction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and lhe rate and mount of surface runoff. Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site desi~m 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. Deparlment of Public Works. R:\STAFFRFIM09pA97.PC 2/26/98 pa 42 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Pat'W: Exposure of people or property to water related hnrarclS such as flooding. Payment of Area Drainage. Plan Fee for flood mitigation. Pay charges to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Dislrict by either cashier's check or money order, prior to the 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. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Department of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expesttre of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. The applicant shall obtain a floodplain development permit to ensure all fm. ished floors are a minimum of one ( 1 ) foot above the base flood elevation. Submit a floodplain development permit to the Public Works Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or torbklity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Deparlment of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). R:XSTAFFRIr/MIIgPA97.PC 2/26/98 pa 43 TranSportation/Circulation General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts. 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. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle/rips or Waffle congestion. Payment of Development Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance wi~h, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Cede. Prior to the issuance of building permit. BnildinE and Safety Depafhuent. Biological Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Endangered, ~h'eatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephem Kangaroo Rat. Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a Fading permit. DeparUnent of Public Works and Planning DeparUnent RASTAFFRPTN409PA97.PC 2/'26/98 pa 44 Public Services General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mi~gaiion Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire proteelion. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the mainW~nance 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 ~ Temecola Municipal Code. Prior to the issuance of building permit. BUilding & Safety Departmere. A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant impacts are anticipated. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Depa iment and Temecuia Valley Unified School District. A subslantial 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 DeparUnent. R:XSTAFFRPTX409pA97.PC 2/26/98 pa 45 AESTHETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The potential visual impact to adjacent commercial/industrial uses. Design the project to be compatible with the surrounding sln~ctures in terms of bnilding materials and colors, architectore, site layout, adequate landscaping, and bulk and mass limltatious. The applicant has worked closely with the City's Landscape Architect to ensure the landscaping from Murrieta Creek to the proposed development will be an appropriate lransi~on from the mtural vegetation to developed property. Submit landscape, elevation and construction plans to the Planning Department for review and approval. Prior to issuance of a building permit. Phnning Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory. Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Deparlment for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety Department. R:\STAFFRF1M09PA97.PC 2/26/98 pa 46 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRFI~09PA97.PC :2/26/98 pa 47 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0409 (Development Plan} EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 2, 1998 VICINITy MAP CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) BP x kA c BP EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0409 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 2, 1998 CC CC , P R:',STAI~FRFI'~09PA~7.PC 2/25/98 pa CITY OF TEMECULA VICINITY MAP c ~ I I ..... Y PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN MURRIETA CREEK SELF STORAGE 0~'.' ,0' '"""".0' 120' PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0409 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- D SITE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 2, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA --,7 'l"'~ '"'~-=-"' ..~ ........ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0409 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- E LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 2, 1998 R:\STAFFRFr~09PA97.1~C 2/2~/98 I~ CITY OF TEMECULA WEST ELEVATION OFFICE/MANAGER~ UNIT SOUTH ELEVATION PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS MURRIETA CREEK SELF STORAGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0409 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- F-1 ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 2, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA NORTH ELEVATION ~ -- ,~ .. s~ E ....... ~ ~' EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION PRELIMINARY ELEVATIONS MURRIETA CREEK SELF STORAGE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0409 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- F-2 ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 2, 1998 ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION March 2, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0014 (Development Plan) Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0014; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0014; and ADOPT Resolution No. 98- recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0014 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Temeka Advertising Michael D. Wislon The design and construction of a 17,420 square foot two- story office/manufacturing building, associated parking and landscaping on 1.32 acres. On the south side of Zevo Drive, east of the intersection of Zevo Drive and Winchester Road, known as a portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 909-320-042. LI (Light Industrial) SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: North: South: East: West: Not requested LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) R:~STAFFRF~I4PA98.FC 2/26/98 klb GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP (Business Park) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Existing Industrial Building Vacant Vacant Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: 1.32 acres (net); 1.53 acres (gross) Total Site Area: Building Area: 17,420 square feet Landscape Area: 18,432 square feet Paved Area: 22,735 square feet Parking Required: Parking Provided: 48 parking spaces 52 parking spaces Building Height: Twenty-nine (29') feet BACKGROUND Planning Application No. 98-0014 was submitted to the Planning Department on January 14, 1998. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on January 29, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the design and construction of a two-story, 17,420 square foot office/manufacturing building, associated parking and landscaping on 1.32 acres. The first floor is primarily manufacturing space with some office area, and the second story is comprised of office and storage space. The structure is being built for Temeka Advertising. ANALYSIS Site Design The project will take access from Zevo Drive, near the northwest corner of the site. The site has been designed to accommodate vehicular and truck access throughout the site. Loading facilities are on the west and south sides of the building, and parking is located in the front, side and rear of the project. An outdoor employee lunch area is conveniently located at the southwest corner of the building. Architecture The building will be tilt-up concrete. The east, west and south elevations have been articulated through the use of non-reflective, black windows; extensive reveals and architectural accents of black glass set into the concrete walls. The main entrance to the building is at the northeast portion of the building. The main entrance has been defined with a non-reflective, black, glass R:\STAF~RPT~14PA98.FC 2/26/98 kJb '~ wall and extensive windows along the north elevation. There is a copper metal canopy and the corporate sign further defining the main entry. The entry is also accented with decorative, stamped concrete, landscaped planters and palm trees. Staff has worked with the applicant and his team of representatives and feels the applicant is proposing a quality project that is utilizing appropriate colors and materials through the use of non-reflective, black glass, the architectural accents of black glass, the heavy use of reveals, the copper canopy, and the well defined main entry. The structure is compatible with the existing buildings in the area in terms of colors, materials, height, bulk and mass. LandscaDing Over thirty-two percent (32.06%) of the site has been landscaped. The landscaping provided exceeds the twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial) zone, The site does have a slope that runs along the entire western property line. The slope is landscaped pursuant to the Development Code landscaping requirements for slopes. The proposed street tree (London Plane) is consistent with the speculative industrial building across the street. Moreover, trees have been provided along the eastern property line to help break up the long wall mass. The City's Landscape Architect has reviewed the landscape plan and the applicant has addressed comments on the plan. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). Existing zoning for the site is LI (Light Industrial). Manufacturing/office/warehouse uses are permitted with the approval of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project is the design and construction of a 17,420 square foot two-story, office/manufacturing building, associated parking and landscaping on 1.32 acres. The project as proposed is consistent with the Design Guidelines, Development Code and the General Plan. FINDINGS The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. R:~STAFFRP~I4PA98.PC 2/26/98 kJb 3 The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. 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: PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8 Initial Study - Blue Page 18 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 37 Exhibits - Blue Page 44 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Elevations G. Color Elevations H. Colors and Materials Board I. Floor Plan R:'~STAFFRPT~14PA98.PC 2/26/98 Idb 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- R:\STAFFRPT~I4PA98,PC 2/26/98 kJb 5 PC RESOLUTION NO. 9g- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF T~E CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0014 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 17,420 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY OFFICE/MANUFACTURING BUHJHNG, ASSOCIATED PARKING, AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.32 ACRES LOCATE1} ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF DIAZ ROAD, EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ZEVO DRIVE AND WINC/W-~TER ROAD AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-320-042. WHEREAS, Temcka Advertising filed Planning Application No. PA98-0014 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0014 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHIlEAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0014 on March 2, 1998, at a duly noticed public heating as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WItEREAS, 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. PA98-0014; 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. Eiadja~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0014 makes the foliowing findings; to wit: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City' s Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. R:\STAFFRPE14pA98.PC 2126198 Idb 6 C. The project is consistent with the LI - Light Industrial Zoning on the site, which permits manufacturing, warehousing, distribution and corporate office uses. D. 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 Conlpliance. An Initial Study prepand 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration with De Minimus Findings, therefore, is hereby adopted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA98-0014 to consU'uct and operate a 17,420 square foot office/ manufacturing building, associated parking and landscaping on a parcel containing 1.32 acres located on the south side of Zero Drive, east of the intersection of Zevo Drive and Winchester Road and known as a perlion of Assessor's Pared No. 909-3204342 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFFED this 2nd day of March, 1998. Linda Fithey, Chairman I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of March, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRFI~I4pA98.PC 2/26/98 k~ 7 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STA~I4PA98.1~C 2/26/98 klb 8 EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Banning Application No. PA98-0014 (Development Plan) Project Description: The design and construction of a 17,420 square foot two-story, office/manufacturing building, associated paring and landscaping on 1.32 acres. Assessor's Parcd No.: 909-320-042 Approval Date: March 2, 1998 Expiration Date: March 2, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Plot Plan which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et see., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter R:\STAFFRPTXI4PA98.FC 2/26/98 kl~ 9 diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, or as amended by these conditions. a. Two (2) Class I lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided. b~ A minimum of forty eight (48) parking spaces shall be provided. c. A minimum of two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F and Exhibit G (color elevations), or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). ~ Colors Concrete (walls & columns) Chalk White, Flat Vinyl Acrylic (Benjamin Moore #271) Metal (roll-up doors) Chalk White, Semi-Gloss (Benjamin Moore) Glass (entrances/windows) Non-Reflective Black Glass Canopy(16 Gauge Copper Plate) Brushed Copper Color Architectural Accents Black Glass Landscaping shall be provided in substantial conformance with Exhibit "E" (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. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 10. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation). Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 11. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid. 12. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E', or as amended by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall R:XSTAFFRPT~14pA98.PC 2/26/98 be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan}. 13. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Ranning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 14. An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage shall be required if signage is proposed. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager. 15. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 16. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape and irrigation plans. 17. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 18. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street 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 by telephoning 909 696-3000." R:~STAFFRPT~14PA98.PC 2/26/98 klb 11 19. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released. 20. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 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. 21. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 22. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. 23. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 24. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans, (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994) 25. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 26. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 27. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement, 28. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 29. 30. 31. 32. R:\STAFFRPT~I4PA98,FC 2/26/98 kl~ ~ 33. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. 34. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 35. A preconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 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 36. 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. 37. 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, 38. 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 39. A Grading Ran 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. 40. 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. 41. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. 42. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of R:\STAFFRPT~I4PA98.PC 2/26/98 kro ]-~ downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Develol~er. 43. The Developer must comply with the recluirements 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. 44. 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 45. 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. 46. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. 47. 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. 48. 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. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 49. 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. b. 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 and shall be shown on the improvement plans. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Noso 400 and 401. R:~STAFFRP'~14pA98,PC 2/26198 kJb e. 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. 50. 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. 51. 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. 52. 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. Pdor to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 53. 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 54. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 55. 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. 56. 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. 57. 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-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 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 R:',STAFFRPT~I4PAgg.PC 2/26/98 k]b ]-5 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (UFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A) 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 ~" outlets) shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than 250 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) Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 70,000 Ibs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 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) 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) Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. 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 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) 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 (6) 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) 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 R:\STAFFR~T~14PA98.1~C 2/26/98 k~ ]- ~ 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) 66. 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) 67. 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) 68. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, building final or occupancy, buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or modifications to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or all of the following: 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. (UFC Article 81) OTHER AGENCIES 69. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated January 27, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 70. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated January 28, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 71. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations as set forth in the Police Department transmittal dated February 2, 1998, a copy of which is attached, to the extent practical and not in conflict with conditions contained hereino By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Name R:\STAFFRPT~14PAg8.I~C 2/26/98 kJb 17 Jeffrey L. M~nkJer John F. Henni~ar Phillip L. Forbes E, P. '3oh" Lemons Janua~ 27,1998 Ms. Patty Anders, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WAT, ER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY PARCEL 26 OF PARCEL MAP 28471-'1 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA-98-0014 Dear Ms. Anders: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service and sewer service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. On-site and off-site improvements may be required for water and sewer service. The owner should contact the District for the determination of these requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 98/SB:mr025/F012/FCF c: Laurie Willlares. Engineering Services Supervisor TO: FROM RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTB DATE: January 29, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~N~ HARRISON. He~ Specialist III PLOT PLAN NO. PA98-0014 Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA98-0014 and has no objections. 2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ISSUANCE: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. c} If there are to be any haTnrdous materials, a clearance letter from the Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (694-5022) will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services. Ordinance # 615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2). · Waste reduction management. CH:dr (909) 285-8980 cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Branch FR0nday February 2, 1996 11:16m -- From ,9095D' '5' o- Page 2~ 62/(~2/1998 11:03 9695~628'-.- TE)~:CULA F:~I_T*CE PA~E 02 City of Temecula Temecula Police Department FeNuelr2. lgg8 PAN~O014 ('l'wo*.stupfy OfiTme/Mmmfaetting Buiklne ~ learldngl 1. Apldl~entehalleama~dlmer. qeinga~lhedgeesumaWi~eet~olxaklnllawemelntainedate heigN no Weete m~n thirty~x 136| incheL Z. Ap~c/nt~e~ured~fe~m~a~r~d~e~p~exb~1d~1g~reke~ta~adi~ta~es~dete~ tom e~--L w;(liy by wauld-be Ixrgkes. 3. Adel0onaly. pb~dutdd~and frees waf be malnteined bewas not dedg~ for foot tmffm. lheeamawilbemdmeinedeaetohmFecba~viditybypaumedmdWeventconoealmemby 4. Ugi. finufeedmllbelretaledtolumineledlpaldeeereas. ddvewmm, pedesedmwalkweysaed employeeouteklelum:harea, TheeeNNmehdlbelBwithemklmenmalmakmdone(1)lootcandleof r~htatge, ndkvd. eve~emesede~mthesefee.~~dedmes. Alexmetight rum~esshaibevaeulal~s~tamtaodpol~ioomdMesnottopfo~ueeVlare. lbe/ofde~ledor 5. VmHd mdetamightructwes ehd be in~Medeboveallexted~d,or~ eounddmlmmlng. Thee igh~rulwe~d~elfeminee~hedetsudmewn~aminimmueMain,doe/t) footeeneeo~reg~tm 8. Mdooes, wirdows, loddng~.hi~les. amdoUmrrnisceUaneouslmm'wmshdbeof commefd,' ur insljtutlond grade. 9. AnypubiceW. atedentheextedorofthefadatyshaibeplaedbawel-llghted. hlghly vkMdsarea, am~linstalk~d wfiha'Cal-O utO nlY'femufeto dets'k:dts~w~O- 10. Seeetaddree~l~bepeetedbavt~bbbcaee:mblm,m14b~desbh,ight.~nthestmetdde .fklsm~smwithaQmmsmingbs~k~round. 11. Nlroof haeeb~e, the eeeeed l~x ofeach leuleng~hell be NImed'lntemaeb~One~e.' 12. Theaddeem/erthelocedmlbeFeintedonemerooftmingenoleestheftfo~r(4)feetjn helgld, i~eelor whk~omma~Ithebeakg~mnd. Plme Sectioa (90el S06-2628. ~rsPmvsf~0fiaPasmOf~cs ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\STAFFRPT~14PA98.PC 2/26/98 Ir~ 18 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist Project Ti~e: 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. PA98-0014 (Development Plan) City of Tamecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Tcmecula, CA 92589 Patty Anders, Assistant Planner (909) 694-6400 On the south side of Zevo Drive, east of the intersection of Zevo Drive and Winchester Road. Also know as Parcel 26 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 28471-1 (Westside Business Park, south side of Zevo Drive west of Diaz Road). Temeka Advertising, 43089 Business Park Drive, Tamecula, CA 92590 BP (Business Park) A Development Plan proposal for a two story, 17,420 square foot office/manufacturing building with associated parldng and landscaping on a 1.32 acre site. The project is located in a area that has been previously graded, street improvements have been made and water and sewer are within vicinity of the project. Land is vacant to the south, east and west, with an existing manufacturing building to the north. Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health Department, Tamecula Police Department, Eastem Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water Dislxict, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Co~,,any, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency. R:~qTAFFRI~I4PA98.PC 2t26/98 ~ ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The ~nvironm~ntal factors chw, kod below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "PoUmtially SiL, ni~cant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards [ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise [X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public S~rvices [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 ~valuation: I find that although the proposed project could havo a significant effect on the ~nvironment, 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. R:\STAFFRPT~I4PA~S.PC ~/26/9S klb 20 Potentially Significant Implet Potentially $igni~c,nt Unless Incorpor~t~l Leu Th~n Irapa~t Impact 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan &siSnation or zoning? (Sourc~ 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopU~d 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 fsnnlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existing housing especially affordable housing? GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rape? b. Seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcsnic hazard7 e. Landslides or mudflows? f Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or ~H? g. Subsidence of the land? h. Expansive soils? [] [] [] ~] [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [1 [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [1 [1 [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] ~] [1 [1 ~] [] [] [] IX] [] [] [1 [1 [1 [~ [1 [1 [] [~ [] [] [x] [] [] ~] [] [1 [] [] [X] [] R:\STAFFRPTXI4PAgg.PC 2126/98 lab 21 ISSU~ AND SUPPORTING INPORMATION SOURCES Po~ntially Slg~i~cam Impact $iZai~c~m Unless Mitigtfion No Impact I, Unique geologic or physical futures? 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage paReras, or the rate and amount of surface nmoff~ Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source 2, Figure 13, Page 95 and Source 2, Figure 30, Page 190) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or tubidity)? d. Changes in the mount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, fithe through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h. Impacts to groundwater quality? I. Substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b. Expose sensitive reoeptors to pollutants? c. Aller air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [x] [] Ex] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] Ix] [] [x] [] [xl [] R:\~TAPFRPT~I4PAg$.PC 2/26198 Idb 22 Polcntislly Siffni~nt Impsot Po2nfially significsnt Unless Mitigation Incorporatcd L~ss Than $iZni~cnnt tmp,ct NO 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vchiclc trips or tra~ic congestion? b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d. Insut~cierxt parking capacity on-site or off-site? e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f. Conflicts with adopted pohcies supporting alternative ~ansportation (e.g. bus Un'nouts, bicycle racks)? g. Rail, waterborne or air ~raffic impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects. anunals and birds)? b. Locally designatcd species (e.g. heritagetrces)? c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? c. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the resicicnts of the Sta~? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [XJ [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] Ix] Ix] [x] [] Ix] [x] [] R:XSTAFI~,PT~I4PA9g.PC 2/26/98 Sigsi6csnt Unless Mitigation $igni~eam Impact No lnlpact 9. HAZAltDS. Would the proposal involve: a, A risk of accidental explosion or release ofhszardons substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? b, Possible interfere~c~ with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d, Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e. Increase fire hazard in areas with finable brush, ~ass, or trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result a. Increase in existing noise levels? b, Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Maintenanee ofpublicfacilities, including roads? e. Other governmental services? 12. lJTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations in the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b, Communications systems? c. Local or regional water Ireslment or disWibution facilities? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [1 [] [] [x] Ix] [x] [] [] [] [] [x~ [x] [x] [] [] [] [] [] [] Ix] ix] R:XSTAFFRFI~I4PA9g.PC 2/26/98 klb 24 Po~ntially $igni~oant Pot~fiany Significant Unless Mitigation Las Than Significant lmpa~t No d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a sccmc vista or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c. Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the proposal: a. Disturb palcontological resources? b. Disturb amhaeological resources? c. Affect ~stofical msuttrecs? d. Have the potential to caus~ a physical change which would effect unique ethnic cultural values? e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. herease the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b. Affect existing recreational oppommifies? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGND1CANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduoe the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop b~low serf-sustaining levels, threaton to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ix] [] [x] [x] Ix] [] [] [x] [x] [x] [] [] R:\STAFFRPTXI4PA98.PC 2/26/98 Poten~slly SiSni~csnx ]n~pact Si~ni~csm Unless Mitigation lncoq~orst~d I~s$ Than Signi~csn~ ranpact NO Does the project have the potential t~ achieve shofl-t~rm, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ 17. EARIJI~R ANALYSES. None. SOURCES 1. City of Teraecula General Plan. 2. City of T~necula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Coast Air Quality Manag~nent Dislrict CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 4. City of Temecula D~velopment Code R:\STAFFI~TH4PA9B.PC 2/26198 ~n, 26 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use and Planning 1.b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City°s General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the iand uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The site has been previously graded and services within proximity of the project. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 1 .c,e. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community). The project is an manufacturing/office use in an area surrounded by land that is currently planned to be developed with similar uses. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. PoDulation and Housing 2.a. The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is an industrial/office/warehouse use which is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does not exceed the floor area ratio for Business Park, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park). The project will cause people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.c. The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant; therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. R:',STAFFRFr~I4PAg8.1~ 2]26/98 Mb ~7 Geologic Problems 3.8. c,g,h. The project will result in a less than significant impact on people as a result of fault rupture. The project is not located in a fault zone or within a fault setback area; therefore no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking; however, there may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.d. The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.f. The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography, grading or fill. The site has been previously graded and the project does not propose significant grading beyond that which has already occurred. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, harriscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Since the amount of grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project, modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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 ere anticipated as a result of this project. R:'~rAFFRPTXI4PA98.PC 2/26/98klb 28 4.b. 4.d,e. 4.f-h. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant to people or property to water related hazards such as flooding because the project site has been elevated outside of the 100 year floodway as a result of grading performed prior to project approval. However; the project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate service provision as the City develops. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Poltutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage will not considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters; however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~STAFFRPTX14pA98.PC 2/26/98 klb 29 4.i. The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the proDerty owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Air Quality 5.a. The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project (17,420 square feet of manufacturing/office) is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact (276,000 square feet) established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Page 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.b. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.c, The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.d. The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. Transl)ortation/Circulation 6.a. The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Diaz Road and Winchester Road. The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFl~'RPTX14PA98.PC 2/26/98 klb 30 6.c. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is a manufacturing/office use in an area with existing and planned similar uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not provide direct access to nearby uses; therefore, it will not impact access to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d. The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The applicant has completed a parking needs analysis based upon the uses proposed by this project. Based upon this analysis, there will be sufficient on-site parking spaces provided. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.e. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f. The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation as there will be no impact to bus turnouts or bicycles racks; in fact the proposed development includes a bicycle rack to accommodate alternative means of transportation of the subject site. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.g. The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Biological Resources 7.8. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.b. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.c. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFIUr/'XI4PA98.PC 2/26/98 k~ 3 1 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. 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. Energv and Mineral Resources The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non- renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. 8.c. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.a. The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. Large quantities of these types of substances will not be associated with this use. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and the applicant must receive their clearance prior to any plan check submittal. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:~STAFFRPT~I4PA98.PC 2/26/98 klb 32 9.c. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is an industrial/warehouse development in an area of existing and future similar uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Noise The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term. lO.b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Public Services 11.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significan( impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.c. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.d. The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of R:\STAFFRPT~I4PAgg.~C 2/26/98 k~ California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 11.e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Utilities and Service Systems 12.a. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.b. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.c. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.d. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.e. The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.f. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT~I4PA98,PC 2r26/98 ki ~34 12.g. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Aesthetics 13.a. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b. The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The applicant and architect worked with City staff to ensure a design that complies with the City-Wide Design Guidelines. The building is relatively consistent with other designs in the area. The enhanced landscaping and additional architectural treatments will provide additional aesthetic enhancement that will result in a quality designed building. Therefore, no adverse visual impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. The project will have a less that significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in a minimum amount of light or glare considering the scope of the project. However, all light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory; therefore the project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). With the conditions of approval, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 14.a-c. The project will not have an impact on paleontological, archaeological or historical resources. The site has been disturbed from prior grading activity and any impacts to these resources would have been mitigated during the grading process. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.d. The proiect will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.a-c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e. The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 15.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The R:~STAFFRPT~14PA98.XaC 2/26/98 kJb :35 same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant iml~acts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:',STAFFP, P~I4PAg8.1~C 2/26/98 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:~STAI:'P]~nT~I4PA9g.I~C 2/26198 Geologic Problem~ General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Mitigation Monitoring Program P!annlnE Application No. PA98-0014 (Development Plan, Temeka Advertising) Expose people to impacts from seismic Found shaking. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Depathaent of Pubhc Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shah be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading and bnilding permits. Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Deparunent. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground failure, including liquefaction. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered C~vil 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. Deparhnent of Public Works and Building and Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Utilize conslruetion 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:\STAFFRPTXI4PA98 .PC 2/26/98 lifo 38 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Proces,~s: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milnstone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unsutble soil conditions from excavation, gradin~ or fill. Phnting of slopes consistent wilh Ordimnce No. 457. Submit erosion conu'ol plans for approval by the Departmere of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works. Erosion, changes in lopography or unstable soil conditions from excavalion, grading or ~l. 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 proparty to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failore, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards. A sobs report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shah 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 ~e issuance of grading permils and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Deparunent. R:\STAFFRPTXI4PA98.PC 2/26/98 klb 39 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Exposure of people or property to seismic Found shaking, seismic grotmd failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department 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 properlies, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans. Submit grading and drainage plan to the Depa, h,ent of Public Works for approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Department of Public Works. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shah submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). R:\STAFFRPBt4PAgS.PC 2/26/98 klb 40 Trnn,%t)ortstion/Circnlntlon General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle ~ps or traffic congestion. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecuia Municipal Cede. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building and Safety Depa, iment. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: heruse in vehicle trips or U:affic congestion. Payment of Development Impact Fee for Iraffic signal mitigation. Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Cede. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building and Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site. Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate the use. Install on-site parking spaces pursuant to the City's minimum Developmere Code parking sumdarda. Prior to lhe issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works, Phnning Department and Building & Safety Depattment. R:~TAFFRFBI4PAgg. PC 2r26/98 klb 41 Biological Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Pllblic Services General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: ~erexl, threatenext 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 dislurbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and Planning Department. 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. A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant impacts are anticipated. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temeeula Valley Unified School Diswict. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department and Temecula ~qalley Unified School District. R:~TAFFRPT~I4PA98.PC2/26/98klb 42 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: AESTHETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, Waffle impacts, and public facilities. Payment of the hbHc 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. The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare fixat could affect the Paloff Observatory. Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Building and SafeW Deparunent for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety DeparUnent. R:~TAFFRPT~I4PA98.PC 2/26198 klb 43 ATTACHMENT N0.4 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRPT~I4PA98.PC 2/26/98 kl'o 44 CITY OF TEMECULA // \ / ./ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0014 (Development Plan} EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 2, 1998 VICINITY MAP R:\STAFFRP'I~I4PA98.PC ~225/98 pa CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) BP EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK) BP PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0014 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 2, 1998 CC · H CC R:\STAFFRPT~I4PA98.PC 2/25/98 pa CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0014 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 2, 1998 SITE PLAN R:\STAFFRPTX14PA98.PC 2/25/98 pa CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0014 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- E LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 2, 1998 R:\STAFI~14PA98 ,PC 2/25/98 CITY OF TEMECULA NORTH ELEVATION F_e~EL~NATION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0014 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 2, 1998 ELEVATIONS R:\STAFFRPTH4PA98.PC 2/'~/98 p~ CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0014 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - I-1 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 2, 1998 FLOOR PLAN R:\STAFFRFI~I4PA98.1~C 2/'25/98 CITY OF TEMECULA r I RECEPTION PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0014 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - I-2 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 2, 1998 FLOOR PLAN R:\STAFFRPTXI4PA98 ,PC 2/25/98 Idb