HomeMy WebLinkAbout040198 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please contact the office of the Community Development Department at (909) 694-
6400. Noffi~cetion 48 hours prior to · meeting wil| eneble the City to make reasonable arrangernente
to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.36.104 ADA Title I1|
CALL TO ORDER:
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
April 1, 1998, 8:00 P.M.
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
Chairman Fahey
Reso Next In Order #98-007
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Guerriero, Miller, Slaven and Soltysiak
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you
desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request
to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary
before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Ageride
2. Approval of March 2, 1998, Planning Commission Minutes
3. Director's Hearing Update
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA98-0064 (Development Plan)
J. G. Stouse Constructors
North side of Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North)
between Ynez Road and Margarita Road.
To construct and operate a 54,225 square foot master
planned commercial center, consisting of a 6,550 square
foot Mimi's Cafe restaurant, a 21,477 square foot Building
"A," a 19,600 square foot Building "B," and a 6,598 square
foot Building "C" all designed for retail shops, on five
parcels totaling 6.91 acres.
Negative Declaration
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Approval
5. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
6. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
7. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next Regular meeting:
Planning Application No. PA98-0029 (Conditional Use
Permit)
Dale Hackbarth
On the east side of Front Street, immediately southeast of
the intersection of Del Rio Road and Front Street on a 1.70
acre site.
The design, construction and operation of a 6,222 square
foot fast-food restaurant with a drive-through and
associated parking and landscaping.
Negative Declaration
Patty Anders
Annie Bostre-Le
Approval
Planning Application No. PA98-0012 (Development Plan
Revision)
AEW/LBA Acquisition Co., LLC
27511 Ynez Road, in the Tower Plaza Shopping Center at
the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez
Road.
The replacement of 15,625 square feet of retail space with
the construction of a 23,462 square foot Michaels retail
store and 23,500 square feet of retail space for a future
tenant, in two phases.
Categorical Exemption
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Approval
Planning Application No. PA97-0327 (Tentative Parcel Map
No. 28657)
Bill Dendy, Westside City II LLC
Northwesterly of Remington and Diaz Road
The reparcelization of 58 acres of industrial property,
which is a portion of Tentative Parcel Map No. 24086,
into nine (9) lots, in two (2) phases.
Negative Declaration
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Approval
April 15, 1998 6:00PM, City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 1998
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular session at 6:01 P.M., on
Monday, March 2, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerdero, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, and
Chairwoman Fahey,
Absent: None.
Also Present:
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Principal Engineer Parks,
Attorney Curley,
Project Planner Donahoe, and
Minute Clerk Ballreich.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. APPROVAL OFAGENDA
It was noted that staff was recommending that Agenda Item No. 3 (General Plan Amendment
and Zone Change) be continued off calendar.
Ms. Sharon Miller, P.O. Box 355, Temecula, owner of Out-of-Space Storage, informed the
Commissioners that at her business, boxes are sold on site and that U-Hauls are rented;
therefore, she expressed concern with regard to the proposed amendments and questioned how
they may impact her business.
Section 10 - 2a. - any business activity other than rental storage units including
the on-site sale of merchandise ... businesses which utilize vehicles as pad of the
business is prohibited.
2c. - Truck and Vehicle rental businesses are prohibited.
Ms. Miller also questioned why the agenda does not reflect the proposed planned overlay.
Temecula Planninq Commission
March 2 1998
Mr. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing the most southerly property owner of
the area of discussion, relayed his understanding that this Item would be continued off calendar
and would be renoticed at the completion of the Pala Road bridge design. Chairwoman Fahey
confirmed Mr. Markham's understanding.
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved for the approval of the Agenda as amended (Agenda
Item No.3 continued off-calendar). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice
vote reflected unanimous approval.
2. Approval of Minutes - February 2, and February 23, 1998
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to approve the minutes of February 2, 1998, as written.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval with the exception of Commissioner Soltysiak who abstained.
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to approve the minutes of February 23, 1998, as written.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Miller and voice vote reflected unanimous approval
with the exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Planning Application No. PA97~0237 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change)
A request to cleanup General Pla' -~mendment and Zone Change changing the
the designations from Office to Service Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial,
and from Neighborhood Commercial to Service Commercial.
RECOMMENDATION
Continued off calendar.
4. Planninq 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.
Assistant Planner Anders reviewed the staff repod (of record) and referenced the following
added and amended conditions:
Add
To allow the Planning Manager to work with the applicant to approve any modifications
to the site or the landscape plans which may result from a resolution of the easement
issue.
Temecula Planning3 Commission March 2, 1998
Amend
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit El or as amended by these
conditions. The applicant shall work with the City's Landscape Architect to create a plant
palette that consists of riparian and native California species which are more compatible
with the existing native landscepin9 alone Mumeta Creek. The Plannine Manager shall
review the revised landscape plan to ensure appropriate species and placement. The
Landscape Plan shall be modified to reflect all changes. Once the landscape palette is
approved by the PlanninQ Manaeer. the landscaping installed for the proiect shall be
continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined
that the landscaping is not heine maintained. the Plannincj Manaeer shall have the
authority to require the property owner to brine the landscaping into conformance with the
approved landscape plan - Condition No. 6.
Attorney Curley recommended that Condition No. 5 be amended to read as follows:
Amend
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 unless the Planning Manager determines Planning Commission review is
appropriate. In the event the Flood Control District determines the 135' easement area or
any portion thereof is not required. the applicant shall landscape the non-required area to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager unless the area has been improved
pursuant to and in conformance with this approval.
In response to Commissioner Soltysiak's concern with regard to possible erosion of the existing
bank, Principal Engineer Parks advised that the channel is a flood controlled and maintained
channel and that if any erosion were to occur, it would encroach the applicant's property and,
therefore, recommended that slope protection be provided.
At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing.
Mr. Rocky Liuzzi, 1220 Eighth Street, Manhattan Beach, California, applicant, addressed
proposed landscaping and its location, noting, for Commissioner Miller, that there would be
sufficient room for the proposed landscaping.
Mr. Rick Wallace, architect representing the applicant, confirmed that the proposed landscaping
would easily fit into the designated 3' area. In response to Commissioner Slaven, Mr. Wallace
advised that the 30' tower, viewed as an architectural feature, was designed at this height to
provide clear public visibility of the office; that the storage building downspouts as well as the
storage space doors will be the color teal but that the downspout on the managers building will
not be the color teal.
For Commissioner Soltysiak, Mr. Liuzzi voiced no objection to the recommended condition that
black wrought iron be used versus teal wrought iron and that the location of the monument sign
will be placed in a location to ensure it would not intrude with a future sidewalk area.
Temecula Planning Commission
March 2. 1998
Relaying his concurrence with the proposed design of the building, Commissioner Miller voiced
no objection to the teal downspouts for the storage building considering they would not be visible
to public view. It was noted by Mr. Liuzzi, for Commissioner Miller, that the tower will depict
signage on two of the four sides (south and east side) and that no neon signs would be used.
For Commissioner Soltysiak. Principal Engineer Parks advised that it is the City's intent to
construct sidewalks throughout the City, including industrial areas,
Commissioner Soltysiak viewed :qe proposed location as an ideal location for the proposed use.
MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to close the public hearing and to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0409; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program
for Planning Application No. PA97-0409; and to adopt Resolution No. 98-005 with the
amended/added conditions.
RESOLUTION NO. PC 98*005
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0409 A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
REQUEST TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT, AND OPERATE A 71,987 SQUARE FOOT
SELF-STORAGE FACILITY WITH A RESIDENTIAL MANAGER'S UNIT AND
OFFICE BUILDING 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 KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-400-058 AND 059
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerdero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
5. Planning Application No. PA98-0014 (Development Plan)
A request for a development plan for a 17,420 square office/manufacturing building
with associated parking and landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION
To approve the request as conditionedo
Assistant Planner Anders reviewed the staff report (of record), advising that the area which
resembles living quarters will actually function as a storage area and that, as per Code, living
quarters would not be pe-,missible.
At this time, Chairwoman Fahey opened the public hearing.
Mr. Mike Wilson, Temeka Advertising, inc., confirmed that no living quarters are being
constructed and that the area would De used for storage of financial records.
Temecula Plannincl Commission
March 2. 1998
MOTION: Commissioner Slaven moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative
Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0014; to adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program
for Planning Application No. PA98-0014; and to adopt Resolution No. 98-006.
RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0014 TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A 17,420 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY OFFICE/MANUFACTURING
BUILDING, ASSOCIATED PARKING, AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 1.32 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF DIAZ ROAD,
EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ZEVO DRIVE AND WINCHESTER ROAD AND
KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO, 909-320-042.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval,
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Planning Manager Ubnoske informed the Commissioners that at a recent City Council Workshop,
the City Council decided to schedule joint meetings with all Commissions, including the Planning
Commission. Advising that staff has on file a list of joint meeting topics, Ms. Ubnoske requested
that the Commissioners submit to staff, by March 14, 1998, additional topics the Commissioners
may want to discuss at the joint meeting.
Commissioner Slaven requested that the following topics be added to the already existing list:
traffic
temporary sign issue
approval of the Sign Ordinance
RV parking
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
A. Advising that flags such as those located at the Texaco station on Front Street are viewed
as temporary signage, as per the current Sign Ordinance, Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that
the City Council has instructed staff to take no action until the new Sign Ordinance has been
adopted.
B. Commenting on the lack of enforcement, Commissioner Guerriero relayed his concern with
individuals being requested to remove banners from private property and then placing them onto
public property.
C. In response to the Commission's request to change the Commission meeting date, it was
the consensus of the Commission to change the meeting to every first and third Wednesday of the
month beginning with the month of April.
Temecula Plannine Commission
March 2~ 1998
Suggesting that this meeting date be changed on a 90-day trial period, Attorney Curley
recommended that the upcoming meetings be adjourned to the first and third Wednesdays of the
month. If after this 90-day trial period the Commission opts to continue meeting on the first and third
Wednesday, Attorney Cudey noted that such a request would have to be officially approved by the
City Council.
D. In response to Commissioner Soltysiak, Pdncipal Engineer Parks advised that Caltrans on
Saturday, February 28, 1998, had completed some emergency pothole repairs on Interstate 15,
noting that because Caltrans viewed these repairs as emergency, no forewarning was given to the
City.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:04 P.M., Chairwoman Fahey formally adjourned this meeting to Monday, March 16, 1998, at
6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive.
Linda Fahey, Chairwoman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
ITEM #3
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM: Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
DATE: April 1, 1998
SUBJECT:
Director' s Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for February and March, 1998.
Dat~ Case No. PropoSal
February 12 PA97-0439 Product review for Tract
Maps 23371-6 and 23371-7
February 19 PA98-0019
February 26 PA97-0408
March 5 PA97-0304
March 19 PA97-0414
Development Plan for
product review for Tract
24186-F
La Master's Jewelry, to
construct an 8,857 sf
multiple tenant retail
building
Development Plan for a
9,995 square foot industrial
building
Minor Conditional Use
Permit to install and operate
an unmanned substation
: Applicant
McMillin Companies
Buie Communities
Thomas Langley
Enterprise Electric
Cox Communications
Action
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 2
R:\DIRHEAR\MEMOx~I-98.MEM 3/25/98 klb 1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
R:\DIRHEAR\MEMO~-I-98.MEM 3/25/98 lifo
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 12, 1998 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA97-0439 (Product Review)
McMillin Companies
Temeku Hills portion of the Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199,
Planning Area 35 (east ofMargarita Rd., west of Meadows Pkway,
north and south of Honors Dr.
To offer three floorplans with three elevations per floorplan on 73 lots
within Tract Map No. 23371-6 and 23371-7
Categorical Exemption - Class 5 Minor Alteration in Land Use
Limitations
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Larry Cooley
Approval
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
R:\DIRHFARXAGENDA\2-12-98.AGN 3/2/98 klb
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 19, 1998 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that axe not listed on the Agenda. Speakers axe limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmemal Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA98-0019 (Development Plan)
Buie Commun:ties
Near the intersection of Leena Way and Meadows Parkway (Tract
24186 -F)
Product review for the construction of three (3) product types
(models) within the Paloma/Paseo del Sol Specific Plan
This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA due to the
previous certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for
this site.
John De Gange
Approval
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
R:\DIRHF~,R\AGENDA\2-19-98.AGN 3/2/98 klb
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR ' S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 26, 1998 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner
PUBLIC COMMF~NTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA97-0408 (Development Plan)- La
Master's Jewelry
Thomas Langley, 27513 Ynez Road Temecula, CA 92591
26760 Ynez Road (Ynez Center Commercial Park).
To construct a 8,857 square foot multiple-tenant retail building on
0.76 acre site located within the Ynez Center Commercial Park.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
John De Gange
Annie Bostre-Le
Approval
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
R:\DIRHF~RXAGENDA\2-26-98.AGN 3/2/98 klb
AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 5, 1998 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
V~en you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
Speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
Plann;~g Application No. PA97-0304 (Development Plan)
Ted mm Jerry Kristensen (Enterprise Electric)
On the south side of Rio Nedo, east of Calle Empleado (42625 Rio
Nedo)
To construct a 9,995 square foot industrial building on 0.93 acre site.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
John De Gange
John Pourkazemi
Approval
ADJOURNMENT
R:\DlRHEARxAGENDA\3-5-98.AGN 3/24/98 klb
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR' S REARING
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 19, 1998 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMF, NTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior
Planner on items that axe not listed on the Agenda. Speakers axe limited to three (3)
minutes each. If you des'ire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the
Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior
Planner.
When you axe called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA97-0414 (Minor Conditional Use
Permit)
Cox Communications PCS, LP
26201 Ynez Road (Magnetorap Building)
To install and operate an unmanned substation consisting of a 368
square foot ground mounted equipment area and an 18 foot high, 256
square foot penthouse structure to which antennas are flush mounted
to the exterior of the penthouse walls.
Categorical Exemption - Section 15301 Existing Facilities, Class 1 (b)
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
1erry Alegria, Assistant Engineer
Approval
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
R:\DIRHEAR~AGI~qDAX3-19-98.AGN 3/~4/98 klb
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 1, 1998
Planning Application No. PA98-0064 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. 98-0064;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. 98-0064;
ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning
Application No. 98-0064 based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
J. G. Stouse Constructors
Jack Stouse
To construct and operate a 54,225 square foot master planned
commercial center, consisting of a 6,550 square foot Mimi's Cafe
restaurant, a 21,477 square foot Building "A", a 19,600 square
foot Building "B", and a 6,598 square foot Building "C", all for
retail shops, on 6.18 acres.
North side of Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North) between
Ynez Road and Margarita Road.
CC (Community Commercial)
CC (Community Commercial)
North:
South:
East:
West:
CC (Community Commercial), LI (Light Industrial)
SP (Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan)
CC (Community Commercial)
CC (Community Commercial)
R:~STAFFRPT~64PA98.PC 3/25/98 cd
PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Santa Gertrudis Creek flood control channel
and Winchester Highlands Business Park
Vacant (proposed Regional Mall site)
Chevron station and carwash, Pep Boys,
Costco
America's Tire (under construction)
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Building Area:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
6.18 acres (269,201 square feet)
54,225 square feet 20%
57,018 square feet 21%
155,240 square feet 58%
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
225 spaces, 7 handicapped accessible spaces, 10 bicycle
spaces, 2 motorcycle spaces
286 spaces ]225 standard spaces, 61 compact spaces
(20%)], 13 handicapped accessible spaces, 16 bicycles, 2
motorcycle spaces
28.5 feet
BACKGROUND
A pre-application meeting was held for this project on January 15, 1998. The application was
formally submitted to the Planning Department on February 17, 1998. A Development Review
Committee (DRC) meeting was held on March 5, 1998. The project was deemed complete
on March 10, 1998.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes a master planned development of the remaining five vacant parcels on
the north side of Winchester ~oad (State Highway 79 North) directly across from the proposed
regional mall site. The project is designed with a 6,550 square foot Mimi's Cafe restaurant
fronting Winchester Road, and a total of 47,675 square feet of additional commercial retail
space in three separate buildings constructed for speculation. The project is to be known as
the "Winchester Marketplace."
ANALYSIS
Access and Circulation
The project proposes two access drives from Winchester Road. One is located at the west end
of the site which aligns with the signalized intersection for the regional mall and the other
driveway is toward the center of the site, and is the main entryway, leading up to the
pedestrian plaza area between Building "A" and "B". Additionally, the site can be accessed from
adjacent commercial businesses both to the west (America's Tire is under construction) and
R:'~STAFFRPTX64PA98.PC 3/25/98 ed 2
east (Chevron service station, mini-mart and carwash), contributing to the internal circulation
system all along the north side of Winchester Road between Ynez Road and Margarita Road.
Site Design
The applicant proposes a mix of buildings that both front Winchester Road and buildings that
set back along the Santa Gertrudis Creek. The applicant used the irregular shape of the site to
design buildings that do not appear linear, and to provide parking both in the front and rear of
the buildings. Loading docks are proposed at the rear and sides of buildings, with delivery
trucks able to circulate on a minimum 24-foot wide drive aisle. Site design provided for the 25-
foot Transportation Corridor along Winchester Road, which will be fully landscaped. The design
of the site is consistent with the provisions of the Development Code and the Design
Guidelines.
Architecture & Colors
The applicant has proposed a cohesive set of buildings, similar in style to the commercial
building already under construction in front of Costco approximately 550 feet to the east.
Tower elements are used throughout, with circular towers highlighting building entrances.
These towers and covered walkways breakup any building massing, providing shadows and
interest. The rear elevations of Building "A" and "B" also avoid massing, with building indents
and shadows. The domed tower elements are visible from all perspectives at the site. Cornices
are used on all sides of the buildings, and tile accents are generously employed , with color
variations identifying each of the retail buildings.
Mimi's Cafe has selected colors that tie its building, designed with its own corporate image, to
the balance of the project. Because of its location at the west end of the project site, Mimi's
is able to retain its unique architectural characteristics without affecting the continuity of
Winchester Marketplace. Mimi's has four-sided building articulation, and three-sided signage.
Landscaping
The project proposes to landscape 21% of the site which exceeds the minimum requirement
of 20 percent in the CC (Community Commercial) zone. The site exceeds the requirement for
a minimum five foot wide landscape planter around its perimeter with a 5.5 foot wide planter
at its smallest width along the Santa Gertrudis Creek. The applicant is proposing to enhance
tree plantings along the north boundary as an appropriate buffer for the Creek, to screen the
trash enclosures and loading docks, and to break up the view of the rear of Buildings "A" and
"B." Clusters of 24" boxed evergreens are shown to be spaced 12 feet on center in these
areas.
Plantings surround the front and sides of the buildings, and highlight the two pedestrian plaza
and seating areas. Planrings also line the driveway approaches and heavily buffer the existing
Rancho California Water District well site adjacent to the west. According to the streetscape
plan (Planning Application No. PA97-0355), two Rhus lancia trees at the easternmost driveway
will be removed and replaced with three Mondel Pines.
R:\STAFFRPT~64PA98.PC 3/25/98 cd 3
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation and the zoning classification for the site is CC
(Community Commercial). Restaurant and general retail 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 General Plan and the Development Code.
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 compatible with surrounding land uses and can be considered an infill project.
The architecture provides an interesting and cohesive development, with ample use of unique
features and color variations. The proposed design contributes to an aesthetically appealing
presence along Winchester Road, as well to the circulation pattern in this area. Therefore, it
is staff's opinion that the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan,
Development Code and Design Guidelines.
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.
An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that although the
proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are
not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project
design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project
site has been previously disturbed and graded, and street improvements have already
been installed on site. 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, or that the site serves as
a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project.
R:\STAFFRP3~64pA98 .PC 3/25198 cd 4
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 22
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 37
Exhibits - Blue Page 43
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
D. Site Plan
E. Elevation
a. Building "A"
b. Building "B'
c. Building "C"
d. Mimi's Cafe
F. Landscape Plan
G. Floor Plans
a. Building "A"
b. Building "B"
c. Building "C"
d. Mimi's Cafe
H. Screening Plan
R:\STAFF!~T~64PA98.PC 3/25/98 cd 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-
R:\STAFFR/ri~64PA98.PC 3125/98 cd 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA98-0064 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN -
WINCHESTER MARKETPLACE) TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A 54,225 SQUARE FOOT MASTER PLANNED
COMMERCIAL CENTER ON 6.18 ACRES, LOCATED ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD (STATE
HIGHWAY 79 NORTH) BETWEEN YNEZ ROAD AND
MARGARITA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NOS. 910-290-003, -004, -005, -006 AND -007
WHEREAS, I. G. Stouse Constructors filed Planning Application No. PA98-0064
(Development Plan) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Cede;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0064 (Development Plan) was processed
in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0064
(Development Plan ) on April 1, 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 heating, 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. PA98-0064 (Development Plan);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA98-0064 (Development Plan) makes the following findings; to wit:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655
(Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
R:XSTAFFRPTX64PA98.PC 3/25198 cd 7
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.
C. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are
not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
D. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare
species or their habitats, including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The
project site has been previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. 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. Farther, there is no 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. F. nvironmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared for this project and
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,
therefore, is hereby adopted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA98-0064 to construct and operate a total of 54,225 square feet of
commercial retail buildings for Mimi's Cafe and for speculation on a parcel containing 6.18 acres
located on the north side of Winchester Road, between Ynez Road and Margarita Road, known
as Assessor's Parcel Nos. 910-290-003, -004, -005, -006, and -007, subject to Exhibit A,
attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof.
R:\STAFFRP'I~64pA98.PC 3F25/98 ed ~B
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 1st day of April, 1998.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 1st day of April,
1998 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:%STAFFRFI~64PA98.PC 3125198 cd 9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPTX64PA98.PC 3/25/98 cd I 0
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA98-0064 (Development Plan - Winchester Marketplace)
Project Description:
To construct and operate a total of 54,225 square feet of
commercial retail buildings for Mimi's Cafe and for speculation on
a parcel containing 6.18 acres located on the north side of
Winchester Road, between Ynez Road and Margarita Road
Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-290-003, -004, -005, -006, and-007
Approval Date: April 1, 1998
Expiration Date: April 1, 2000
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the
amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable
the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated
or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and
California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty*eight (48} hour period
the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division 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 applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims,
actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set 'aside, void,
annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in
furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the
voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the
both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
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:\STAFFRPTX64PA98.FC 3/25/98 ca I 1
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 (Site Plan),
approved with Planning Application No. 98-0064, or as amended by these conditions.
Bicycle racks shall be designed and installed in accordance with the City's
Development Code.
Two motorcycle spaces shall be provided in compliance with the City's
Development Code.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with the approved Conceptual Landscape Plan,
Exhibit F, or as amended by these conditions. Landscaping installed for the project shall
be continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager and the
Development Code. 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. The continued
maintenance of all landscaped areas snail be the responsibility of the developer or any
successors in interest.
Screening along the north perimeter planter area shall be installed in accordance
with the Screening Plan for this project, Exhibit H.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with the approved plans (Color
Elevations), or as amended by these conditions. All mechanical and roof equipment shall
be screened from public view by architectural features integrated into the design of the
structures.
The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning Manager a design for
pedestrian plaza furniture and fixtures (including but not limited to light fixtures,
benches planters, trash receptacles and umbrellas), that describes location, color and
materials.
The colors and materials used for Mimi's Cafe shall conform substantially with the
approved color and material board submitted for Mimi's Cafe, or as amended by these
conditions.
Awn-1 Canvas entry awning
Awn-2 Striped canv.~s window awning
CTR-1 Clay tile roof
P-1 Textured plaster parapets and walls
P-2 Painted wood sash and dormer windows
P-3 Painted wood shutters
P-4 Painted wall cornices and wood fascia
P-5 Painted decorative light fixtures
Color
Boyle & Co. 42208 Concord
Boyle & Co. 44228 Teal
Deleo Mission Tile Blend Buff, Rose, Red
Sinclair Blanched Almond
Sinclair CM8309-Billiard
Sinclair CM8310-Tropic Turquoise
Sinclair CM8500-Ceramic Beige
Sinclair SIN8782-Jet Black
R:\STAFFRFI~64PA98.PC 3/25/98 cd 12
SSV-1 Simulated stone veneer Stone Products Wisconsin Weathered Ledgestone
ST-1 Stained trim, trellis, gates, shutters Olympic #717-Natural Tone Redwood
10.
The colors and materials used for Building "A," "B" and "C" shall conform substantially
with the approved Color and Material Board and approved Exterior Finish Schedule
submitted for Winchester Marketplace, or as amended by these conditions.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
11.
The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for permanent filing two (2) 8"
X 10" glossy photographic color prints each of the Color and Materials Board and the
colored architectural Elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and
Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints.
12.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that
ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
13.
When necessary, the parking area for the facility, and the parking area and the drive
aisles for the maintenance facility shall be sprayed with appropriate dust control
materials.
14.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and
return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
for their files.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
15. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
16.
Reciprocal access and parking agreements shall be executed among the parcels on the
project site as well as between the project owners and adjacent properties both to the
east and west.
17.
Assurance that the installation, maintenance, repair and access to common utilities and
landscaping shall be provided by the execution of CC&Rs or agreement among the
property owners.
18.
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.
19.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. These plans shall be consistent with the
Water Efficient Ordinance and conform subatantially with the approved Exhibit "F"
Conceptual Landscape Plan or as amended by these conditions. 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:
R:~STAFFRPTX64pA98,PC 3/25/98 ed 13
Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
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 planrings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
20.
Separate building permit applications for the installation of signage shall be submitted
in conformance with City ordinances, Design Guidelines and Development Code.
21.
An Administrative Development Plan application will be required for any sign program
submitted for the entire project area.
22. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
23.
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.
24.
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.
25.
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\64PA98.PC 3/25/98 cd 14
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.
26. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
27. 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.
Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be A-3 for Mimi's and M
for the balance of the entire site.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,
1994)
Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
Show path of accessibility from parking space to furthest point of improvement.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and 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 an 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.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34,
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
R:\STAFFRPT~64PA98.PC 3/25/98 c4t 15
41. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal.
42. Provide precise grading plan with plan check submittal to verify handicap accessibility.
43.
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
44.
A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work a~,o 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.
45.
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.
46.
An Encroachme": Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of
Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or
proposed State Right-of-Way.
47.
All grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency
with adjacent projects an,: existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be
submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
48.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
49.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall conform
to applicable City standards. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Departments
of Public Works and Community Development. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property. 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.
R:%STAFFRPTX64PAgg.PC 3/25/98 cd 16
50.
51.
52.
53,
54.
55,
56.
57.
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.
Localized mounding of earth may be required in parkway areas as deemed
necessary by the Public Works Director to provide adequate headlight screening
from adjacent thoroughfares.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Division
Department of Public Works
Building & Safety Division
Rancho California Water District
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, prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist, shall be 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.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division 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 in a format acceptable to the Department
of Public Works.
A Flood Rain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works
for review and approval. Permit shall include, but not be limited to, the following
criteria:
The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard
map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
Adequate elevation or flood proofing of the proposed building above the 100-
year flood elevation.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A and is subject
to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall
comply with Chapter 15.12 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code, and with the rules
and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include
obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA.
R:~STAFFRPT~64pA98,PC 3/25/98 c.d 17
58.
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.
The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities
intended to discharge this runoff. 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.
59.
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.
60.
An Area Drainage Ran fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
61.
A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is
required for work within their Right-of-Way.
62.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
63.
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.
64.
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.
65.
The developer shall apply for a Lot Line Adjustment to revise the lot lines between
Parcels 1 and 3 of Parcel Map 26852. The Notice of Lot Line Adjustment pursuant to
the lot line adjustment shall approved by the Director of Community Development or his
designee and be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.
66.
The developer shall apply for a Parcel Merger to combine Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 26852
with Parcels 1 and 3. The Certificate of Parcel Merger shall be approved by the
Director of Community Development or his designee and recorded prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
67.
The developer shall obtain written permission from Rancho California Water District for
the construction of the proposed building and the driveway on Lot 1 prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The letter of permission should reference the easement
for access, in favor of Rancho California Water District , recorded September 25, 1991
as instrument No. 331258, records of Riverside County, California. A copy of the
recorded letter or quitclaim deed shall be submitted to the Planning Department and
Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
R:~STAFFRPT~64PA98.PC 3F25~98 ~1 18
Prior to Issuance of o Certificate of Occupancy
68.
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
69.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
70.
All public improvements and private improvements shall be constructed and completed
per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works.
71.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works:
Allow for or install traffic signal interconnect loops within the driveway on Parcel
I for the proposed signal at the intersection of the driveway and Winchester
Road.
Install street lights on Winchester Road as determined by the Director of Public
Works.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Due to erosion problems from properties adjacent to the Santa Gertrudis Recreational Trail, the
applicant shall be required to address this situation during construction and also on a long term
basis. As a result, the TCSD conditions this project as follows:
72.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall establish temporary erosion
control methods acceptable to the Public Works Department to prevent the flow of
water, silt and debris across the adjacent Santa Gertrudis Recreational Trail.
73.
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a mow curb shall be constructed along
the northerly property line, set 2" above grade, to prevent the flow of water, silt and
debris across the across the adjacent Santa Gertrudis Recreational Trail..
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in
accordance with the City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
74.
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in City of
Temecula Ordinances and recognized fire protection standards. A fire flow of 1500
GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before
any combustible material is placed on the job site.
R:\STAFFRPT~64pA98.FC 3/25/98 cd 19
75.
The required fire flow shall be available from a super fire hydrant (6"x4"x2-2 ~" ),
located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as
measured along vehicular travelwave.
76.
The applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the
water company noting location of the existing fire hydrant and the existing water
system is capable of delivering 1500 GPM fire flow for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI
residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the
applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial
arrangements have been made to provide them.
77.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Department
approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and
minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals
shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature.
78.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by
the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed
on the job site.
79.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer snail pay $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
80.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
81.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of
a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
82.
InsTall a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans shall be submitted
to the Fire Department for aDproval prior to installation.
83.
Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires
Hazardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data
and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fire or
burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
84.
All exit doors shall be designed so that they may be opened without the use of key or
special knowledge or effort.
85.
Occupancy separation walls will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, Section
302.4.
R:\STAFFRPT~64PA98.PC 3/25/98 cd 20
86. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2AIOBC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
87. It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would
classify it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 3 of the Uniform Building Code.
88. Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining underground and aboveground
tank permits from both the County Health and Fire Departments.
89. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
fire hydrant.
90. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall painting all required fire lanes
red and stencil every 30 feet NO PARKING FIRE LANE CVC22500.1.
91. Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
92. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
93. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
OTHER AGENCIES
94. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control transmittal dated February 27, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
95. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated February 25, 1998,
a copy of which is attached.
96. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated February 25, 19978 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's Signature
Date
R:\STAFFRPTX64PA98.PC 3/25/98 cd 2 1
DAVID P. ZAPPE
Gencral Manager-Chief Engine, el
ILIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER. CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
7829,1
City of Temecula
Plannin Department
43200 ~usiness Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attent,on: (',Ft OLE
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: PAct S - bV/ L/
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities.
The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood
hazard reports for such cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of
specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and
f
drainage facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension o a master plan system, and District
Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided.
The District has not reviewed the roposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any wa
constitute or imply Distnct approvaVor endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public healt~
and safety or any other such issue:
This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional
interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider acceptin ownership of such facdlt~es on written request
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distnct standar2s, and District plan check and inspection wdl be
required for District acceptance. Ran check, inspection and administrative fees will be required,
or money ordefr only to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of ~ild~ng or grading permits,
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination S stem (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation. or other ~Y~al approval should not be given until the City
has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this pro ect involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should
require the applicant to rovide all studies, calculations, plans and other ~nformation required to meet FEMA
requirements. and should ~urther require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR prior
to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy.
if a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the ap ticant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean '~ater Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.~. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence fTOm these agencies indicating
the pro oct Is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required from the Ioca Ca fore a Reg onal Water Qua ty Control Board pr or to ssuance of the Corps 404 perm t.
Very truly yours,
Semor Civil Engineer
Date: Z'?--'7- eL
TO:
FROM:
RE:
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: February 25. 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Q~.~ZAREgE/~RRISON. EnviromnentaI Health Specialist
PLOT PLAN NO. PA98-0064
The Department of Environmental Ecalth has reviewed the Plot Plml No. PA98-0064 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL fbr health clearance. the iollowing items ,are
required:
a) "Will-serve" letters li-om the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b)
Tlaree complete sets of plmas for each food establishment will be submitted. including a fixture
schedule. a finish schedule. and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure c ~pliance with the
California Unilbrm Retaii Food Facilities Law. For specific reference. piease contact Food
Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022.
c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (90% o94-5055
will be required indicating that the prqject has been cleared tbr:
Underground storage tanks. Ordinance//617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services. Ordinance #615.3.
· I lazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2}.
· Waste reduction management.
3. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA).
CI l:dr
{909} 275-8980
NOTE:
Plan review tbr final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
cc: l)oug l'hompson
titi,'~i:,~ d
stand~b doc
Any current additional requirements not covered. can be applicable at time of Building
Ran
Watnr
Ralph II. Dail~
Februa~ 25,1998
Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCELS 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5 OF PARCEL MAP 26852;
APN 910-290-003, APN 910o2S0-004, APN 910-290-005,
APN 910-290-006, AND APN 9'10-290-007;
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98°0064
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
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
~998
98/SB:rnc017/F012/FCF
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRPT'X64PA98.PC 3/25/98 c~t 22
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
Project Tifie:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Spousor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
Planning Application No. PA98-0064
(Development Plan) for Winchester Marketplace
City of Temeenia, 43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Cardie K. Donahoe, AICP, Project Planner
(909) 694-6400
North side of Winchester Rood (State Highway 79 North),
between Ynez Rood and Margarita Rood.
J. G. Stouse Construc~rs, 41661 Enterprise Circle North,
Suite 217, Temeeula 92590
CC (Community Commercial)
CC (Community Commercial)
To construct and operate a 54,225 square foot master
planned commercial center, consisting of a 6,550 square
foot Mimi's Care restaurant, a 21,477 square foot
Building "A", a 19,600 square foot Building "B", and a
6,598 square foot Building "C", all for retail shops
The Santa Gemdis Creek flood control channel and
industrial buildings to the north, Chevron service station
and carwash and other cornrnercial properties to the east,
vacant (proposed regional mall site) to the south, and
commercial properties currently under construction to the
west for America's Tire.
Fire Department, Health Department, Temecula Police
Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Raneho
California Water District, Riverside County Flood
Control, Southern California Edison, Southern California
Gas Company, General Telephone
R:\STAFFRPTX64PA98.PC 3/25198 ed 23
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [X] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Signature
Printed Name: Carole K. Donahce
Date: March 13. 1998
For: City of Temecula
R:\STAFFRFB64PA98.PC 3/25/98 cd 24
slpincant
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the propnsal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
b. Conflict with applicable environmenial plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c. Be incompatible with erAsling land use in the vicinity? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
d. 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) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community)?
[] [] [1 Ix]
Discussion of the environmental impacts
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 CC
(Community Commercial). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the
Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City
commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their
particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all
agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given ~he 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 Faded and services have been extended
into the area. Them will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No signi~cam effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
1 .c. The proposed Mimi's Cafe restauram and retail shop bullclings could be considered infill and will not conflict
with other retail uses in the vicinity. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
i .e. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-
income or minority community). The project is a service facility surrounded by some currently developed
properties. 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.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects? (Source 1, Page 2-23) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either direedy or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
R:\STAFFRFl~64PA98.PC 3/25/98
Discussion of the environmental impacts
2 .a. The project will not cumtdatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project does not
exc~_At the floor area ratio for Community Commercial, and therefore will not be a significant contributor to
population growlh. No significant effects are anticipated as a restfit of this project.
2.b. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either direcfiy or indirectly. The project is consistent
with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Community Commercial. The project will cause people to
relocate to or within Temeoula; 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.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential ironacts involving?
a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
b. Seismic ground shaking? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8; [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
e. Landslides or mudflows? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or fill? [ ] IX] [ ] [ ]
g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
h. Expansive soils? [ ] IX] [ ] [ ]
I. Unique geologic or physical features? I ] [ ] [ ] IX]
Discussion of the environmental impacts
3.b,f,h.
The project may have a significant xmpact on people involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure
(including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading
or fill and expansive mils. 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 '2ode standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part
of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate
conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil
which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground
failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill and expansive soils. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur
during the construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in sfltation, 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
R:\STAFFRPT~64PA98.PC 3/25/98 cd 26
ISSUES AND SL~PPORTL, qG INF01~dATION SOURCES
Pot~,,tkuy u,,k~ ~ ~
sit,,i~nt Maimtrice SlSni~cmt No
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.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?. [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (Source i, Figure 7-3, Page 7-10
and Figure 7-4, Page 7-12; Source 5) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ]
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
h. Impacts to groundwater quality? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
(Source 2, Page 263)
Discussion of the environmental impacts
4.a. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage paUerns 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 ~rough 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.
R:\STAFFRP~64pA98.PC 3/25/98 cd 27
ISSUE3 A~D SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Po~en~nny Unk~ Le,, 1*nan
Si~A~ant Miti~6on SiS~n~t No
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 Pollntant 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. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.d,e.
The project will have a less lhan significant impact in a ehan~ in the mount of surface water in any water body
or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur
because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying
hardscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage into the
City's drainage system is not considered significant. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
4.f-h.
The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of Found 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
Found 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. Less than
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 otherwise available for public
water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Temecula General Plan, "Panebo California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water
demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the projec: Water service will need
to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically pr~vided upon completion of
financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
(Source 3, Page 6-10 and 6-11, Table 6-2)
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
d. Create objectionable odors? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
Discussion of the environmental impacts
5.a. The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan which established target floor area ratios within certain
R:\STAFFRPT~64PA98.PC 3/25/98 cd 2B
land uses in order to determine the intensity of use and impact upon the environment. The project is well below
the target floor area ratio for the Connnunity Comraercial zone, and therefore will not exceed anticipated
impacts which have been mitigated through General Plan policies and guidelines. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
5 .b. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to poHutants. There are no significant pollutants nor sensitive
receptors in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5 .c. The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The limited
scale of axe 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 axe construction phase of axe project. These impacts will be
of short duration and are not considered significant. No other odors are anticipated as a result of this project.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
[] [] ~ []
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Source 4, Table 17.24(a), Page 17-24-9) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Page 12) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impeels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Discussion of the environmental impacts
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 fixis project will contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing
volumes during axe AM peak hour and PM peak hoar lime frames to axe intersections of Ynez Road and
Winchester Road. The applicant will be required to pay waffle signal mitigation fees and public facility fees
as conditions of approval for the project. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.b. The project will not result in haTards 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 in an area
with existing similar uses and planned Community Commercial uses. The project is designed to current City
sumdards and has adequate emergency access. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPB64pA98.PC 3/25198 cd 29
6.d. The project will have sufficiem parking capacity on-site. The applicant has completed a parking needs analysis
based upon the uses proposed by fixis project. Based upon this analysis, there will be sufficiem 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 haT~rds or harriers for pedestrians or bicydists. 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 transpomtion. The project
was uansmitted to lime Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). The project was designed to provide pedestrian access
and bicycle spaces in excess of Cede requirements. The project will be conditioned to provide motorcycle
spaces in accordance with the Development Cede. 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.
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, f:sh, insects, animals
and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
b. Locally designa:ed species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15)
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
Discussion of the environmental impacts
7.a. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including,
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously disturbed and
graded. Currentiy, them are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of
plants, no native vegetation on the site. Further, there is no indication tha.~ any wildlife species exist at this
location. The project will not reduce the nmber of species, provide a harri=.: to the migration of animals or
deteriorate existing habita.:. The project site is located within the Stephen' s Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area.
Habitat Conservation fec~ will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a restfit 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.
R:\STAFFRPTX64PA98 .PC 3/25/98 ed 30
Si~/nnt
7.c. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.d. The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site and the wetland
adjacent to the site will not be disturbed. Reference response 7.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
7.e. The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not
serve as pan of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Discussion of the environmental impacts
8.a. The project will not impact aM/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. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)? (Source 1, Figure 7-5, Page 7-14) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
R:\STAFFRPT~64PA98.PC 3/25/98 cd 3 '~
ISSLrES AND SUPFO RTiNO II~FOR,MATION SOURCES
Slsnlf~ant Mit~a~e~ Sls~mW~nt No
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential healill
hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush,
grass, or t~ees? [ ] [ I [ ] IX]
Discussion of the environmental impacts
9.a. The project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact due to risk of explosion, or the release of any
hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request.
Uses at the site are regulated by both the Fire DeparUnent and the Department of Environmental Health. Both
entities have reviewed the project. The applicant must receive clearance from the Department of Environmental
Health prior to any plan check submittal. The applicant must receive clearance from the Fire Department prior
to the issuance of a building permit. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No signjficant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.b. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject
site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from
a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.c. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be
reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued
unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. Reference response 9.a. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known
to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.e. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees. The
project is in an area of existing uses and proposed Community Commercial uses. The project is not located
within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
[] [] ~ [l
[] [] ~ []
Discussion of the environmental impacts
10.a.
The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently
vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction
phases as well as increases to noise in lhe area over ~he long run. Long-term noise generated by fills project
would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. Less than significant noise impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project in either the snort or long-term.
R:\STAFFRFl~64PA98.PC 3/25/98 cd 32
sisni~nt
Pot~,6ally Unles L~, Than
SiSni~csmt ~ Significant No
lO.b.
11.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the developmenUeonstruction 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 heating 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. Less hhan significant impacts are anticipated as a restfit of this project.
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e. Other governmental services?
Discussion of the environmental impacts
ll.a,b.
ll.c.
ll.d.
ll.e.
[1 [] [~ []
[] [1 [~ []
[1 [] [~ []
[] [] [~ [1
[] [] [] [~
12.
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 incremenlally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will
conlribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. Less than significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of lhis project.
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 wi~tin or to the City of
Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. Less than significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads.
Funding for maintenance of reads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of
Temecula from the Slam 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.
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. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial altorations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Local or regional water trealment or distribution
facilities?
1] [1 [1 [~
[] [] [] [~
[1 [] [] [~
R:\STAFFRFB64pA98.PC 3125/98 cd 33
ISSUES AND SUPFORIING INFORMATION SOURCES
d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Page 39-40)
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional wamr supplies?
[l [1 [1 ~
[l [1 ~ [1
[1 [] [1 [~
[1 [1 [1 [~
Discussion of the environmental impacts
12.a.
The project will not result in a need for new system or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or
natural gas. These systems are eurren~y being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
12 .b. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication
systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.c.
The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or
regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
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 significandy 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 fie into the existing
system. Less than 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.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c. Create light or glare?
f] [] [1 [~
[1 [l [1 [~
[1 [~ [] [1
R:\STAFFRFI~64PAgg.PC 3/25/98 cd 34
Discussion of the environmental impacts
13.a.
The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in a area where there
is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b.
The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project is in an area of existing uses
and proposed Community Commercial uses. The buildings are consistent with other designs in the area,
and match up to a similar building to the east constructed by the same developer. The proposed landscaping,
bardscape enhancements and added architectural treatments will provide a positive aesthetic effect. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and
result in light/giare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has
the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent
with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 2, Figure 55, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Page 280; Source 6)
b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 2, Figure 56,
Page 283) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c. Affect historical resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area? [ I [ ] [ ] IX]
Discussion of the environmental impacts
14.b,c.
The project will not have an impact on historical resources. No historic resources exist at the site or are
proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14. d. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which wouid affect tmique ethnic cultural
values. Reference response 14.b,c. No significant impacts are anlicipated 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.
R:\STAFFRPTN64PA98.PC 3/25/98 cd ~5
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities? [ ]
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ ]
[ ] Ix] [1
[1 Ix] [1
Discussion of the environmental impacts
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. Bowever, it will result in an inerementsl 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. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of resWict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-tea,
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c. Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumula~vely considerable? CCumula~vely
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). [ I [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirecfiy? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
None.
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. City of Temecula Development Code
R:\STAFFRYIR64pA98.PC 3/25/98 cd 36
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAFFRP'B64pA98.PC 3/25/98 cd 37
Geololljc Problem~
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA984}064 (Development Plan)
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent widi Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of a Fading permit.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill
Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Department
for approval.
Prior to die issuance of a building permit.
Planning Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic
ground failure, 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 submitled to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads
shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to die issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Deparlment.
R:\STAFFRIYI~64PA98.FC 3/9_5/98 cd 38
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic
ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building
Code.
Submit construction plans to die Building & Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety De"a,-unent
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the
rate and amount of surface runoff.
Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact
adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated
into site design and will be included on the Fading plans.
Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity).
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements
and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in
accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination S> ~tem (NPDES)
requirements.
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
R:\STAFFRlrEXl~lPA98.FC 3/25/98 ca 39
Transportation/Circulation
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:
Biological Resourc~
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee in accordance with
Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Depathnent of Public Works.
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee in accordance with
Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
DeparUnent of Public Works.
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site.
Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate the use.
Install on-site parking spaces.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Depat hnent of Public Works, Planning Department and Building & Safety
Department.
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not
limited to plants, fish, irasects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a Fading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
40
Public Service~
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A subslantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services
regarding fire protection. The 7roject will incrementally increase the need for
fire protection; however, it wi. contribute its fair share to the maintenance of
service provision.
Payment of Fire Mitigation Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees wire the Riverside County Fire Deparunent.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Department
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No si:mi~cant
impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School District.
A substantial effect upon ana ~ need for maintenance of public facilities,
including roads.
Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and
public facilities.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee in accordance with
Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Depatiment of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT~64PA98.PC 3/25/98 cd 41
AESTHETICS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that
could affect the Palomar Observatory.
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Deparunem.
R:\STAFFRPT~64PAgg. PC 3/25/98 cd 42
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFKIrP,64PA98.PC 3/25198 cd 4;3
CITY OF TEMECULA
VICINI TY MAP _
NOT TO SCALE
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0064 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 1, 1998
VICINITYMAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
SP
SP
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)
p ·
~"-~.
CG
f"/.. 'x GG
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0064 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 1, 1998
,/SP
\/-
BP
CG
"" kll '~? VL
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0064 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT D
~LANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 1, 1998
SITE PLAN
R 'STAFFRpT'64pA98 pC
CITY OF TEMECULA
m BUWAI~ON
\
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0064 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E - Building A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 1, 1998
ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFRPT\6-1PA98.PC 3/18/98 cd
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0064 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E - Building B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 1, 1998
ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFRPT~64PA98.pC 3/18/98 cd
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0064 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E - Building C
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 1, 1998
ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFRPT/64PA98.pC 3/18/98 cd
CITY OF TEMECULA
EAST ELEVATION
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0064 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT E - Mimi's Cafe
'LANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 1, 1998
ELEVATIONS
r:\980064f. bs 3/19/98
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0064 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT F LANDSCAPE PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 1, 1998
L
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0064 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT G - Building A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 1, 1998
FLOOR PLANS
R:\STAFFRPT/64PA98.PC 3/18/98 cd
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0064 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT G - Building B
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 1, 1998
FLOOR PLANS
R:/STAFFRPT\64PA98PC 3/18/98 cd
L
CITY OF TEMECULA
I
I
C~ .I
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0064 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT G - Building C
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 1, 1998
FLOOR PLANS
R:\STAFFRPT\64PA98PC 3/18/98 cd
CITY OF TEMECULA
sn~nc~
FL_OO_R pLAN
BUILDING SECTION A-A LOOKING NORTH
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0064 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT G - Mimi's Cafe
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 1, 1998
FLOOR PLANS
r:\980064f. bs 3/19/98
CITY OF TEMECULA
TRASH ENCLOSURE O BUILDING
EVERGREEN SCREEN TREES TYP,
LOADING ZONE BEYOND ~,,
EXIST. CHAIN LINK FENCE
-
LOADING AND TRASH AREA SCREENING ELEVATION
SCALE = 1'=20'-0"
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0064 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 1, 1998
SCREENING
R:\STAFFRPT\64PA98PC 3/18/98 cd
ITEM #5
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 1, 1998
Planning Application No. PA98-O029
(Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit)
Prepared By: Patty Andera, Assistant Planner
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA98-0029;
2. ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA98-0029; and
3. ADOPT Resolution No. 98-
approving/recommending approval of Planning Application
No. PA98-0029 based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
Dale Hackberth
Russell Rumansoff
A Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit request for the
design, construction and operation of a fast-food restaurant with
a drive-through (Rosa's Cafe and Tortilia Factory).
On the east side of Front Street, southeast of the intersection of
Del Rio Road and Front Street on a parcel containing 1.70 acres.
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
North:
South:
East:
West:
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/CC (Community
Commercial)
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/Interstate 15
CC (Community Commercial)
No Change
R:\~;TAFFRPT~29PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Restaurant/Retail/General Commercial
Vacant
Vacant/Interstate 15
General Commercial/Restaurant/Retail
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
Total Site Area:
Building Area:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Building Height:
1.70 Acres
6,222 square feet, 8.4%
17,077 square feet, 22%
51,693 square feet, 69.6%
83 (Vehicles), 1 (Bicycle rack)
87 (Vehicles), 1 (Bicycle rack)
27'
BACKGROUND
A pre-application submittal for the project was made on November 25, 1997, with staff
providing comments on this submittal to the applicant on December 15, 1997. A formal
application submittal was made on January 27, 1998. A Development Review Committee
(DRC) meeting was held on February 12, 1998. The project was deemed complete on March
6, 1998.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the design, construction and operation of a 6,222 square foot fast-food
restaurant with a drive-through, outdoor patio dining area and associated improvements
(hardscape, parking, landscaping and roadways). Hours of operation for the restaurant will be
from 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Friday
and Saturday. There will be seating for 284 people (212 interior and 72 patio seats).
Hardscape improvements include: patios, walkways, driveways, parking areas and drainage
facilities. Landscape improvements include: parking lot, slopes and planting areas, and a street
scape along Front Street . Roadway improvements include installing a sidewalk along Front
Street and a cash deposit for a half-width raised landscaped median.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The subject site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Del Rio Road and Front
Street. Access will be taken from Front Street and a private access easement along the
northern portion of the site. The building is situated near the southwest portion of the site with
the drive-through element along Front Street and continues around to the south and east sides
R:~STAFFPd~TX29PA98,1'C 3/25/98 kJb 2
of the building. There is a covered patio area on the west elevation and a portion of the north
elevation.
Architecture
The proposed project is a "prototype" Rosa's Cafa Tortitla Factory (fast-food restaurant) with
a Spanish "cantina" style architecture. The exterior is primarily a light peach stucco color with
a light blush color. The main entry is defined with decorative, stucco, concrete columns; brick
accent; turquoise color doors and a raised, extended and raised architectural entry element
which creates a covered entry. The covered patio is proposed with a standing seam metal roof
painted turquoise to match the entry doors with concrete columns and railing that enclose the
patio. The east elevation was upgraded with addition windows to enhance this elevation. The
south elevation was upgraded to have a covered wood trellis in addition to the decorative
concrete columns with stucco exteriors. The parapet is articulated with a turquoise metal trim
cap and a decorative Styrofoam rose colored band below the metal trim cap.
The applicant is proposing signs on all four elevations which are in compliance with the existing
sign ordinance. A monument sign is also being proposed at the northwest corner of the site.
As proposed, the monument sign exceeds the maximum height of six (6') feet when the base
of the sign is included. Therefore, the monument sign will be required to comply with the six
(6') foot height limitation, including the base of the sign. The applicant is also proposing two
strands of exposed neon tubing around the perimeter of the building (excluding the main entry)
that are rose and turquoise colors.
Landscaoing
The project is proposing 23% or 17,083 square feet of the site to be landscaped. This exceeds
the minimum landscaping requirement of 20% for the Highway/Tourist Commercial zoning
classification. The proposed trees along Front Street have been selected and located to create
a street scape with a concrete walkway from the proposed sidewalk on Front Street into the
parking area. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure adequate parking lot landscaping
and screening the drive-through.
Access. Traffic and Circulation
Access will be taken from Front Street and a private access easement along the northern
portion of the site. The site has good internal circulation that does not conflict with the
proposed drive-through.
Two proposed sections of access roads are being proposed along the southwest and northeast
portions of the site (see site plan). These roads are not proposed as complete improvements,
but as partially improved access roads to service the future development on the adjacent vacant
lots.
The project will not result in a five (5) percent increase to the nearest intersection (Del Rio and
Front Street) during the PM peak travel hour. The restaurant will not be open for early
breakfast; therefore it is anticipated that the project will not have any noticeable impact the AM
peak travel.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial).
Existing zoning for the site is HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial). A restaurant with a drive-
through is permitted with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 17.04
of the Development Code. The project as proposed and conditioned 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
to a level of insignificance. Therefore, staff recommends that a Negative Declaration with
DeMinimus Findings be adopted for this project.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is for the design, construction and operation of a 6,222 square foot fast-food
restaurant with a drive-through and associated parking and landscaping on a 1.70 acre site.
Drive-through restaurants are permitted upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to
Chapter 17.04 of the Development Code. As proposed, the project is consistent with the
Development Code and the General Plan. It is staff's opinion that the proposed use is
compatible with the surrounding uses. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation that the
proposed project, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, be aiDproved by the
Commission.
FINDINGS
The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan, the Development
Code, and all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the City. The
project has been reviewed for consistency with these documents and Staff has
determined that the project is consistent with the Goals and Policies contained within
the General Plan and the Development Standards contained in the Development Code,
The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development
of adjacent uses, buildings, a~d structures and the proposed use will not adversely
affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The project is consistent in terms of
scale of development and uses (existing and proposed) in the immediate area.
The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and
other development features prescribed in the Development Code. Staff has reviewed
the project and has determined that the project is consistent with the Development
Code.
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community. The project is consistent with the Goals and Policies
contained within the General Plan and the Development Standards contained in the
Development Code, These documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that
projects are not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
Compliance with these documents will assure this is achieved.
R:~STAFFRFI~9PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 4
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
B. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 21
Initial Study - Blue Page 24
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 41
Exhibits - Blue Page 48
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Landscape Plan
G. Color and Material Board
H. Sign Plans
R:~STAFFRIr~29PA98.PC 3/25/98 kl'o 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -
R:\STAFFRFI~gPAg8 ,PC 3/25/98 Jab 6
ATFACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA98-0029 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,222
SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON 1.70 ACRES) AND
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) TO PERMIT THE
OPERATION OF A FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WITH A
DRIVE-THROUGH) LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
FRONT STREET, SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION
OF DEL RIO ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR~S
PARCEL NO. 921-4}60-034.
WHEREAS, Dale Hackbarth filed Planning Application No. PA98-0029, in accordance
with the City of TEMECULA General Plan and Development Cede;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0029 was processed including, but not
limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
~, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0029,
on April 1, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City
staff and interested persons had an oppommity to and did testify either in support or in opposition
to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0029;
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 and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Development Plan Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving
Planning Application No. PA98-0029 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings
as required by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
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.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare.
R:\STAFFRI'T~9PA98.PC 3/25/98 lab 7
Section 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission,
in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0029 (Conditional Use PermiO hereby makes the
following findings as required by Section 17.04.010.E of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code.
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and
development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
C. The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parldng and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping,
and other development features prescribed in this Development Code and required by the Planning
Commission in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety
and general welfare of the community.
E. The decision to approve the application for a conditional use permit is based on
substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission at the time
of their decision.
Section 4. F. nvironmental Corrtpliance. An Initial Study prepared for thjs project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect on the environment because of the mitigation measures incorporated in
the project design and the Conditions of Approval added to the project. The design of the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially
and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There is no fish wildlife or habitat on the
project site, and the project will not affect any fish wildlife or habitat off-site. The project will
not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section
711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration with a
DeMinimus Finding shall be adopted.
Section 5. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA98-0029 (Development Plan) for the design
and construction of a 6,222 square foot building on 1.70 acres and (Conditional Use Permit) to
permit the operation of a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through and known as Assessor's Parcel
No. 921-060-034, and subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A
(Development Plan), and Exhibit B (Conditional Use Permit), attached hereto, and incorporated
herein by this reference.
R:XSTAFFRPT~9PA98.FC 3/'25/98 lifo
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 1998.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at its regular meeting thereof, held on the 1st day of April,
1998 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:XSTAFFRFl~gPA98.PC 3/25/98 Itlb 9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:',STAFFRP'B29PA98.PC 3F25/98 klb 10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA98-0029 Development Plan
Project Description: The use hereby permitted is for the deign, construction and
operation of a 6,222 square foot fast-food restaurant with a drive-through and
associated parking end landscaping on a 1.70 acre site.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
921-060-034
April 1, 1998
April 1, 2000
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the
amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable
the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated
or Negative Declaration recluired under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and
California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period
the applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department * Planning
Division 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 applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims,
actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void,
annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in
furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the
voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the
both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
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:~STAFFRPT~29PA98.PC 3/'25/98 klb 11
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 substantially conform to the approved Exhibit
"D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department -
Planning Division.
Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Landscape Plan).
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
satisfaction of the Planning Man~qer and the Temecula Development Code. 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. The continued maintenance of all
landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in
interest.
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F" (Building
Elevations), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division. All mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by
architectural features integrated into the design of the structure.
The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list
of approved colors and materials and with Exhibit "G' (Color and Material Board),
contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division.
Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the
Community Development Director.
Exterior Stucco (Primary Color)
Exterior Stucco (Background Color)
Brick Trim at Main Entry
Accent Tile Roof
Precast Concrete Columns, Patio & Parapet Trim
Painted Metal Door and Window Frames
Painted F,,~etal Trim Cap
Standing Seam Metal Roof
Color
Light Peach (P7M03707/A272938
Blush P7MO706/A272937
Eagle Brick "Old Smokey"
Deleo-S.F. Buff
Rose
Dunn Edwards 4400 Turquoise
Dunn Edwards 758 M2 Turquoise/Crocus Rose
A.E.P. 817849 Turquoise
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that
ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
10.
A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the applicant for consultation
and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential
paleontological/archaeological impacts. A meeting between the
paleontologist/archaeologist, Community Development Department - Planning Division
R:\STAFFIh~q'X29PA98,I~C 3/25/98 klb 12
staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the
excavation shall be arranged. The paleonto. logist/archaeologist or representative shall
have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow
recovery of fossils.
11.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and
return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
for their files.
12,
The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, G", (Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations,
Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five
(5) full size copies and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved
Exhibit "G" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit
"F", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department -
Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and
Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints.
13.
The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of
approved Exhibit "G" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved
Exhibit "F", the colored architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials
Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
14. A Consistency Check fee shall be per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule,
15.
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
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).
R:'xSTAFFRPTX29PA98.PC 3/25/98 Ir~ 13
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
16.
A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved
Exhibits 'D", "F" and "H", or as amended by these conditions. The proposed monument
sign shall comply with the six (6) foot height limitation, which includes the base of the
sign.
17.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with
the approved construction plans and shall 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.
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 - Plannirg 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.
19.
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."
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.
20.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
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.
R:XSTAFFRFi~gPA98.PC 3/25/98 RIb 14
General Requirements
21.
22.
23.
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.
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.
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
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
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.
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.
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.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
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
R:\STAFFRIarr~gPA98.PC 3/'25/98 lab 15
30.
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.
31.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
32.
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.
33.
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
34.
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 Nos. 400 and 401.
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.
35.
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.
36.
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.
R:\STAFFR/rI'X29PA98,PC 3/25/98 klb 16
37.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western
Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
38.
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
39.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
40.
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.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
41.
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.
42.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of City Ordinance No.
655 regarding light pollution.
43.
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.
44.
Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
45.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
46. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B/A-3.
47. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
R:'xSTAFFRPTX29PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 17
48.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,
1994)
49. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
50. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
51. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
52.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
53.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the
1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
54. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
55.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
56.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
57.
58.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal.
Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
59.
A preconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
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.
60.
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.
61.
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)
R:\STAFFRPT~29PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 18
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
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)
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any
cul-de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (UFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Ord 460)
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, "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)
R:~STAFFRPT~.9PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 19
71.
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 shah be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval
prior to installation. (UFC Article 10, UBC Chapter 9 and Ord 95-15)
72.
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)
73.
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)
OTHER AGENCIES
74.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood
Control District's transmittal dated February 27, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District's by either
a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless
deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan
fee.
75.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated February 23, 1998,
a copy of which is attached.
76.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated February 9, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
77.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit
Agency transmittal dated February 23, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
78.
The app.cant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in Eastern Information
Center's transmittal dated February 12, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
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~29PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 20
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
February 27, 1998
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE. CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attention: Patty Anders
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: PA 98-0029
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in
incorporated Cities. The District also does not plan check City land use cases, or provide State
Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District
comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items as specific interest to the
District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage
facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a matter plan system, and
District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general
nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following
comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed
project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety, or any other such issues.
PA 98-0029 is a proposal to design, construct and operate a 5,282 square foot restaurant on an 1.7
acre site on the south east side of the intersection of Front Street and Via Del Rio Road.
A small southwest portion of the parcel is within the 100 year Zone AE flood plain limits for
Murrieta Creek, as delineated on Panel No.060742-0005B of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, issued
in conjunction with the National Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) as shown in Exhibit 1. The elevation on the FEMA map for a flow
rate of 30,900 cfs is 1009 at the upstream edge of the property. However, a District flood study
determined the entire site to be within the 100-year flood plain. The base flood elevation for the
master plan flow rate of 38,300 cfs was determined to be 1012.43 at the upstream edge of the
property. The high water mark during the flood of Januax7 1993 was 1011.3. All the elevations are
based on 1929 NGVD.
Property within the flood plain should be conditioned to construct the required improvements to
Murrieta Creek Channel or participate in a financing mechanism such as an assessment district to
ensure necessary improvements are constructed.
If the City chooses to allow development to proceed, it should condition the applicant to provide all
studies, calculations, plans or other information needed to meet FEMA requirements. New buildings
should be floodproofed by elevating the finished floor a minimum of 12 inches above Elevation
1012.43, which is the Districts base flood elevation for 38,300 cfs. I-
City of Temecula -2-
Re: PA 98-0029
51152.1
February 27, 1998
This project is located within the limits of the Districts Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted, applicable fees should be paid by cashiers
check or money order to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of building or grading permits.
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the
actual permit.
Questions regarding this matter may be directed to me at 909/275-1214.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
sM:sU
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CO,jNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: February 23. 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Part3, ,~ders
~V~GREGOR DELLENBACH. Environmental Health Specialist iV
PLOT PLAN NO. PA9g-0029
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA98-0029 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are
required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted. including a fixture
schedule. a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference. please contact Food
Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022.
(}D:dr
(909) 275-8980
NOTE:
Any current additional requirements not covered. can be applicable at time of Building
Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
stand3bdoc
1998
CALIFORNIA
I~ISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
Eastern Information Center
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521-04L8
Pr~one (909) 787.
Fax (909) 787-5--,
February 12, 1998
Patty Anders
City of Temecula
Planning Department
P. O. Box 9033
Temecula. CA 92589-9033
Case No.:
Applicant:
98-0029
Dale Hackbarth/Russell Rumansoff
Dear Ms. Anders:
Please find enclosed our comments for one project transmithal as requested by the Planning
Department. If you have any questions, please contact the Eastern Information Center at
(909) 787-5745 (please specify the case number and the date on which we submitted our
comments).
PA98-0029 .................................... February 12, 1998
Sincerely,
Jennifer Bybee
Information Officer
Enclosure
CALIFORNIA
I-IISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
MONO
[NYO
RIVERSIDE
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~,a~-\/ I~I
RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation:
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have
been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural
resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended.
Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potcntial for containing cultural resources. A Phase I study
is recommended.
__ A Phase I cultural resource study (MF #
) identified one or more cultural resources.
The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, duc to the nature of the
project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural rcsourccs is not anticipated. Further study is not
recommended.
__ A Phase 1 cultural resource study (MF #
)idcnti~ed no cultural rasourccs. Further study is not recommended.
__ There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
__ If. during construction. cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or divcrted in the immediate area whdc
a 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 cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelincs for Archaeological
Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin
4(a}, December 1989.
Phase 1
Phase II
Phase III
Phase IV
Records search and field survey
Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sitcs. I
Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two. I
Monitor earthmoving activitlcs
COMMENTS:The ~r~p~x'~,,.] u~c~ ~kr~/e,,/~'d ov,,.c t'i x/~ar~, r~o~o and
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
EIC~FRMS/TRANSMIT
P. an o
Water
Februan/9, 1998
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
PORTIONS OF PARCELS 1 AND 2
OF PARCEL MAP 23822, APN 921 .-060-034
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0029
Dear Ms. Anders:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water Estrict (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon comp;s.:ion of financial arrangements
between RCWD ana the property owner.
If fire prc~ection 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, PE..
Development Engineering Manager
98/SB:mr033/F012/FCF
c: Laurie Williams. Engineering Services Supervisor
./
February 23, 1998
Riverside Transit Agency
1825 Third Street
PO Box 59968
Riverside. CA 92517
I~hone: (909) 684-0850
Fax: (909) 684-1007
Patty Anders
City of Temecula
Temecula Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: PA98-0029
Dear Carol:
RTA presently provides transit service on Front Street and an existing stop is located at:
- Eastside corner of Front Street FS Via Del Rio Road
In order to ensure accessibility to the available transit services for residents and visitors of this
development, RTA would like to suggest that the following transit amenities should be
provided by the owner/applicant to mitigate transportation impacts.
A bus turnout, should be provided at the above stop location, if determined by City
Traffic Engineer to be necessary based on roadway cross section, travel volumes and speeds.
Paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessway consistent with ADA
standards shoula be provided betweeu die stop and the project site.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Your efforts to keep us
updated on the status of this request will be very much appreciated. Please let us know when
this project will be completed.
Stephen C. Oller
Deputy General Manager
PDEV # 154
EXHIBIT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT~29PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 2 1
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA98-0029 (Conditional Use Permit)
The use hereby permitted is for the deign, construction and operation of a 6,222
square foot fast-food restaurant with a drive-through and associated paring and
landscaping on a 1.70 acre site.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
921-060-034
April 1, 1998
April 1, 2000
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims,
actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void,
annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in
furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the
voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the
both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Planning Application No.
PA98-0029 , unless superseded by these conditions of approval. All these conditions
shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use
permit.
This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the
City's Development Code.
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the
approval of this Conditional Use Permit.
Hours of operation shall be between 10:30 a.m. through 11:00 p.m. Sunday through
Thursday, and 10:30 a.m. through 12:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday.
R:\STAFFRIrB29PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 22
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 Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Name
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFP2TX29PA98.FC 3/25/98 Idb 24
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
6.
7.
8.
10.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor' s Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Serdng:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
Planning Application No. PA98-0029 (Development Plan)
City of Temecula, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
CA 92590
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner (909) 694-6400
On Front Street, immediate southeast of the intersection
of Front Street and Del Rio.
Dale Hackbarth, P.O. Box 1089, Corona, CA 91718-1089
HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
The design and construction of an 6,222 square foot fast-
food restaurant with a drive-through and associated
parking and landscaping on a 1.70 acre site.
The project is located in an area that has been previously
graded, street improvements have been made and water
and sewer are within vicinity of the project. Land to the
south and east is vacant, and further east is Interstate 15.
To the west and north is existing commercial, retail, light
industrial and office uses.
Riverside County Fire DeparUnem, Riverside County
Health DeparUnent, Temecula Police Deparunent, Eastern
Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water
District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern
California Edison Company, General Telephone
Company, and Riverside Transit Agency.
R:/STAFFRFFx29PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 2~
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
IX] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [X] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy. and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATiVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
R:\STAFFRPTX29PA98.PC 3/25/98 Lib 26
ISSUES AND SUPPORT~IG INFOI~.~ATION SOI. TR~ES
potentially
Significant
potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
Impnet Incorporated
L~s Than
Significant
Impact
No
1. LAND USE AND PLANN]~G. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning7
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [ ] [ ]
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project7 [ ] [ ]
c. Be mcempafible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [ ] [ ]
d. 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 ANvil 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 homing? [ ] [ ]
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential hnpacts involving?
a. Fault rapture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6) [ ] IX]
b. Seismic ground shag? [ ] [ X]
(Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6)
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? [ ] [ ]
(Source 1, Figure 7-2, Pg. 7-8)
d. Seiche, tsunarm, or volcanic hazard? [ ] [ ]
e. Landslides or mudflows? [ ] [ ]
I2 Erosion, changes in topo~aphy or unstable soil conditions
from excavation, grading or fill? [ ] [ ]
g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Pg. 68) [ ] [X]
Ix]
[xl
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[~
Ix]
ix]
[~
[]
[3
[xl
[x]
[x]
[1
[]
R:\STAFFRI>TX29PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 27
ISSUE,q AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
po~ntiaHy
Signlficnnt
Potentially Unless
Significant Mitigation
L~u Than
Signi~eam No
Impact Impact
h Expansive soils7
I. Unique geologic or physical features?
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and mount of surface runoff?
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (Source I, 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, chssolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
bocb'?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability7
g Altereddirectionorrateof~owofgroundwater?
h Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(Source 2, Pg. 263)
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
(Source 3, Pgs. 6-10 and 6-I 1, Table 6-2)
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors?
[] Ix] [1 []
[1 [] [] [xl
[ ] IX] [ ] [ ]
[] IX] [] []
[1 [] ~] [1
[] [l [1 [~
[] [1 [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [1 [~
[1 f] f] [~
[1 [] [] [~
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [1 [~
[1 [] [x] []
R:\STAFFRPTX29pA98.PC 3125198 klb 28
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOUR(~ES
Potentially
Significant
PotenGally
Significant
Unl~0s
Mitigation
Incorporated
L~as Than
Significant No
Impact Impact
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion7
b. Hazards to safely from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses7
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(Source 4, Table 17.24(a), Pg 17-24-9)
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Pg. 12)
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, ammals
and birds)? (Source 1, Page 5-15, Figure 5-3)
b. Locally designated species (e.g. hefitage trces)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-3, Page 5-15)
c. Locally designated natural cornmumties (e.g. oakforest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3)
d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, tipman and vernal pcol)7
(Source 1, Figure 5-3)
e. 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?
[] [] [x] []
[] [1 [] [~
[] [1 [1 [~
[] [] [] [~
[1 [] [] [~
[1 [] [] [~
[1 [] [] Ix]
[] [1 [] [~
[] [] [1 [~
[] [] [] [~
[1 [] [] [~
[] [] [1 [~
[1 [] [] [~
[] [] [x] [1
R:\STAFFRPT~9PA98.PC 3/25/98 ~ 29
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORIvIATION SOURdES
Po~ntially
Significant
Unicss
Mitigation
lncorporatgd
ten Than
Significant
No
c. Result m the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)? (Sottree I, Figure 7-5, Pg. 7-14)
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plen
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d~ Exposureofpeopletoexistingsoureesofpotentialhealth
hazards?
e.Increase fkre hazard in areas with timable brush,
grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a Increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
sen'ices in any of the following areas:
a Fire protection?
b Police protection?
c Schools?
d. Maintenance ofpublic facilities, including roads?
e. Other governmental services?
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
12.
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[1
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[l
[l
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
ix]
ix]
ix]
[x]
ix]
[x]
[]
ix]
[x]
ix]
ix]
[x]
Ix]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[1
[]
[x]
R:\STAFFRFq'X29PA98,FC 3/25/98 lifo 30
Significant
Mitigation
No
b. Cornnmnjcations systen'Ls?
c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2, Pg 39-40) [ ]
e. Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a seemc vista or scernc highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c. Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
(Source 2, Figure 15, pgT0)
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
(Source 2, Figure 14, pg. 67)
c Affect historical resources?
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect umque ethnic cultural values?
e. Res~ct existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
15. RECKEAT[ON. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational opporlumties?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
fx]
[x]
ix]
[x]
[x]
[]
IX]
Ix]
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
ix]
ix]
R:\STAFFRF~29PA98.PC 3/25/98 lab 3 ]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFOR/dATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
UnJeas
Mitigation
IJ~s Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
d+
to drop below seE-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or arereal community, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or armreal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of C alffomia history
or prekistory?
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cnmulatively considerable? CCumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects).
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
None.
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x']
[xl
ix]
SOURCES
City of Tamecula General Plan.
2 City of Tcmecula General Plan Final EnvironmentaI Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management Dismet CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4 City of Temecula Development Code
R:\STAFFRFTX29PA98.PC 3/25/98 lab 32
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Planning
1 .a. The proposed drive-through restaurant facility is consist with the General Plan and Zoning designation
of Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT). Drive-through restaurants are a conditionally permined use
pursuant to the City of Temecula Development Code Chapter 17.04.
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 HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were
analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction
within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EAR and how the land uses
would impact lheir particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EAR 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 drive-through restaurant will not have a significant impact to the existing development.
The property is surrounded by similar fast food restaurants, office, retail and commercial uses to the
north and west. There is similarly zoned vacant property to the south and east, and further east is
Interstate 15. A conditional use permit (CUP) is required in the HT zone due to the drive-through
portion of the restaurant. The site plan has been reviewed by the City to ensure adequate on-site
circulation and safe ingress and egress from Front Street. The proposed restaurant is determined to be
compatible with the existing uses and adjacent zoning classification, and will not jeopardize, adversely
affect, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare of the
community.
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 Highway Tourist Commercial
zoned property that does not allow residential developments. No significant effects are anticipated as a
result of this project.
Population and Housing
2.a. The project will not cumniatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project
is a drive-through restaurant which is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of
Highway Tourist Commercial. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and is
intended to serve the needs of the existing reside~ats, the proposed development will not be a significant
contributor to population growth which will cnmulatively exceed official regional or local population
projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFP, Ir~29PAg8.1~C 3/25/98 klb 33
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 Highway Tourist Commercial. The project
will not likely cause people to relocate to or within Temecuia, 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 commercially zoned property;
therefore no housing will be displac, exl. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Geologic Problems
3. a,b
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 Wlldomar Fault Zone. Any potentially significant impacts
will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Cede
standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the
application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine
appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the
compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic
ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Increased wind and
water erosion of soils both on ~-.. :~ff-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and
the project may result in changt:~ in siltatlon, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will
be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscapa and landscaping
will serve as permanent erosion control for 'he project. Medification to topography and ground
surface relief features will not be considere,~ significant since modifications will be consistent with
the surrounding developmere. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will
be mitigated fitrough the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation
measures are performed, no im;-,.cts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.d
The project will not expose people to a seiche, tstmami 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 rids project.
3.e
~;he 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 axis 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 anticipa~,d as a result of this project.
Water
4.a. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of
surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant. Previously permeable
ground will be rendered impervious by consinaction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and
driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, po~n~ial impacts shall be mitigated
R:\STAFFRPTX29PA98.FC 3/25/98 klb 34
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. _
4 .b . The project will not have a significant impact to expose people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding because only a small portion of the property is located within a 100 year flood zone or
floodway. The area within the flood zone is near the southwest property line where pavement and
parking is proposed. The project will be condi~oned to raise the portion of the site within the flood zone
to one (1 ') above the 100' year water surface elevation. In addition, the project will be condition to
incorporate methods of controlling runoff from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent
properties Therefore, as conditionally approved to ensure adequate drainage, circulation and safety, there
are 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 Pollntant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until
an NPDES Notice of lntent 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
water body 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, accompanyi~ hlndscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional
amount of drainage will not be considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of fitis project.
f-h. The project will have a less than signj~cant 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 Temeeula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that
they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currenfiy 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.
5 .a. Although idling cars that utilize the drive through will add to air pollution, the project will not violate any
air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project (6,222
square foot drive-through restaurant) is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact
R:\STAFFRFF,29PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 35
(276,000 square fee0 establishod by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Page 6-11, Table 6-2
of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook). Therefore, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of _fi'fis 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 ereate objecfional odors during the conslxuction phase of the project. These impacts will
be of short duration and are not considered significant.
Transportation/Circulation
6.a. The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic
congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in
existing volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Front
Street and Del Rio Road or the intersection of Front Street and Rancho California Road. The applicant
will be required to pay traffic signs~ 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 as the project is providing more than the
minimum number of parking spaces pursuant to the City of Temecula Development Code parking
regulations for fast food restaurants. 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. 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 :,~ 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~gPA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 36
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 detotiorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the StepheWs
Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of
cumuiatlve 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 Temecuia Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the
City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on
site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.c. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response
7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.d. The project will not resttit in an impact to weftand habitat. There is no weftand habitat on-site or within
proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.e. The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does
not serve as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Energy and Mineral Resources
8 .a. The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be
reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check
stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b. The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a
wasteful and inefficient manner. There will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource
during construction (consauction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, concrete), 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.
9.a. The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or ~he release of any hazardous substances in hhe 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
R:\STAFFRPTX29PA98.PC 3/25/98 Idb 37
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 s~reet and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency
evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.c. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project
will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits
will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are
known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
9. e. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees.
The project is a commercial self-storage development in an area that has been graded and some existing
development to the east and north. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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 or less than the existing restaurants, commercial and
retail uses to the north and west in the immediate area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project in either the short or long-term.
10.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase
(short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at I00
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
ll.a,
b.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire
or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection;
however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRFI~29pA98.PC 3/25/98 Idb 38
ll.c.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school
facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City
of Temecula, and therefore, will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
ll.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including
roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the
City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and f~ture 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.
ll.e. Thepr~jectwilin~thaveane~ectup~n~~rresultinaneedf~rnew~ra~teredg~vernmenta~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 fac'dities. 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 anticipatexl as a result of this project. There are no septic
ranks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.e.
The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage
systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie
into the existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.f.
The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal
systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated
through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by
the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.g.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or
regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT~29PA9g.PC 3125/98 kl~ 39
13.a.
The project wia not have a impact o_n a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in
an area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic
highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b.
The project conid have a potentially significant demonstrable negative aesthetic affect if the design
and site plan were not reviewed by City staff. However, the project went through a design review
process as part of the Conditional Use Permit to ensure the architecture, color, ma~2rials and bulk
and mass are compatible with the surrounding development. As proposed, the ~::velopment is
compatible with the aforementioned standards. In addition, the drive-through was designed to be
screened with extensive landscaping to help mitigate any potential visual impacts of idling cars. The
development is providing 23 % landscaping which exceeds the minimum landscaping requirement of
20% in the lIT zone.
13.c.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce
and result in lightJglare, as all development of fiis nature results in new light sources. All light and
glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned
to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
The project will not have an impact on paleontological, archaeological or historical resources. The
site has been disturbed from prior grading activity and any impacts to these resources would have
been mitigated during the grading process. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
14.d.
The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values. Reference response 14.a,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
14.e.
The project will not restrict existing religions 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:\STAFFRPTX29PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 40
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAFFRFr~29PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 41
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0029
(CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT & DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Geologic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from fault rapture.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
An updated soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial Fading plan
cheek. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Bullcling and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building
Cede.
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public
Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT~29PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 42
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible M,': toring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill.
Planting c;f on-site lartks~ping that is consistent with the Development Cede.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning
Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Department.
F.,xt:~sure 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 Fading plan check. Building
pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and 9uilding permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department.
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground
failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards.
U'tdize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building
Cede.
Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department
R:/STAFFRPTX29PA98.PC 3/25/98 kib 43
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:
The proj~t will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage paaerns and
the rate and amount of surface runoff.
Methods of conl~olling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact
adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated
into site design and will be included on the grading plans.
Submit grading and drainage plan to the Deparlment of Public Works for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Deparm~ent of Public Works.
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 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 ofpermits, 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.
Deparlment ofPublicWorks.
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
The applicant shall obtain a floodplain development permit to ensure any
necessary area of the site is one (1) foot above the 100 year water surface
elevation.
Submit a floodplain development permit to the Public Works Depat hnent for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT\29PA98.PC 3/25/98/fib 44
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Discharge into surface waters or ohher alteration of surface water quality
(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity).
An erosi6n 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.
DeparUnent of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
TraqsOortation/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 Cede.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Deparlment.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecuia Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
R:\STAFFRlrI~29PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 45
Biological Resourc~
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not
limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habilat.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Depat ianent
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services
regarding fire protection. The project will ineremenuilly 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 Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Deparlment and Temecula Valley Unified School District.
R:\STAFFRPTX29PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 46
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 i3f Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic
impacts, and public facilities.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The cr: ~n of new light sources will resu;' in increased light and glare that
could ai: ~ct the Palomar Observatory.
Use aghting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655.
Subrr: lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect.
Ensure a high quality arck '.~cmral and design that is compatibility with the
existing development.
Submit architectural plans that conform with the existing development in
terms of design, style, materials and colors.
Prior to scheduling for public hearing.
Planning Department.
R:~STAFFP2T\29PA98.PC 3/25/98 lifo 47
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:XSTAFFRFF\29PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 48
CITY OF TEMECULA
~MECULA
~LANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 98-0029 (Conditional Use Permit & Development Plan)
~XHIBIT A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:
CITY OF TEMECULA
!
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - HT (Highway Tourist Commercial)
P
<"'.> BP
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - HT (Highway Tourist Commercial)
PLA~ING APPLICATION NO. PA 98-0029
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0029
EXHIBIT D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA -
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 98-0029
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998
ELEVATIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0029
EXHIBIT F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998
LANDSCAPE PLAN
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 1, 1998
Planning Application No. PA98-0012 lDevelopment Plan Revision) - Tower Plaza
Prepared By: Carole K. Donehoe, AICP, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department ~ Planning Division
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning
Application No. PA98-0012 based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
AEW/LBA Acquisition Co,, LLC
Donna Clark, Construction Manager; Ron Underwood,
Architect
The replacement of 10,480 square feet of retail space with the
construction of a 23,462 square foot Michaels retail store and
23,500 square feet of retail space for a future tenant, in two
phases.
27511 Ynez Road, in the Tower Plaza Shopping Center at the
northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez Road
CC Community Commercial
North: CC Community Commercial
South: SP Specific Plan No. 180 - Rancho Highlands
East: CC Community Commercial
West: Interstate 15 freeway, HT Highway Tourist Commercial
Not requested
CC Community Commercial
Tower Plaza Shopping Center
R:\STAFFRPT\12PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Embassy Suites Hotel
East: Temecula Town Center
West: Interstate 15
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Tower Plaza Area: 26.69 acres
Total Site Area:
Existing Building Area:
Area Demolished:
Proposed Building Area:
Overall Building Area:
1,162,616 square feet
261,370 square feet 22%
10,480 square feet
46,962 souare feet
297,852 square feet 26%
Landscape Area:
Parking Area:
Harescape Area:
232,523 square feet 20%
603, 176 square feet 52%
29,065 square feet 2.5%
Revised Project Building Height: 25 feet
BACKGROUND
A pre-application submittal for the project was made on December 10, 1997. The formal
application submittal was received on January 28, 1998. A Development Review
Committee (DRC) meeting was held on February 19, 1998. The project was deemed
complete on March 19, 1998.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the design, construction and operation of a 23,462 square foot
Michaels arts and crafts retail store and a 23,500 square foot building for a future tenant in
Phase II. Associated improvements include hardscape, parking, landscaping and aisleways.
The construction of 46,962 square feet of new building replaces 15,625 square feet of
former commercial retail space, for a net increase of building area of 31,337 square feet.
ANALYSIS
The proposal is th second portion of an ongoing plan by Layton-Belling to renovate the
Tower Plaza Shopping Center. Originally the renovation plan, Planning Application No.
PA95-0114, was approved by the Planning Commission on December 4, 1995 and included
the area of the current proposal. However, on June 3, 1996 the applicant requested and
was granted the w~thdrawal of this portion of the plan. The current proposal reflects a
slightly different approach to the expansion at the north end of the shopping center, adding
two large box users to the in-line buildings and relocating the small users to the
entertainment courtyard area to the south.
R:\STAFFRPTq2PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 2
Site Design
The large box users will have loading docks and direct delivery routes to the rear of the
proposed buildings, thereby keeping {he impact of truck traffic upon customers to a
minimum. The project will anchor the north end of the in-line buildings and is designed to
offer several small pedestrian plaza areas in front of the stores.
Architecture
The project architect was asked to blend these large buildings with the balance of the in-line
buildings. Added architectural features from existing buildings include similar column
supports from the front of the theatre, roof material and colors, and the second story
window treatment and roof line, as facades only. The design of the hardscape, with
enhanced paving and landscape planters that provide seat walls, highlight the entries and
offer places for gathering. The Color and Materials Board submitted for the project reflect
those already used at Tower Plaza.
Sianaoe
The proposal includes signage for Michaels and a signage envelope for the future tenant, on
both the front and rear of the building. The proposed signage complies with the Tower
Center Sign Program approved January 15, 1998. The Sign Program allows one square foot
of signage for each linear foot of frontage. The applicant has removed proposed subsignage
at the request of staff in order to achieve compliance with the Sign Program. The Sign
Program encourages identification signs placed on freeway elevations along Interstate 15.
Landscauing
Landscape planters similar to those already provided at the Center will be added to the
building frontages. Planter strips along the north side of the building and along the loading
dock screen walls will provide landscape screening in these areas.
Access, Traffic and Circulation
The proposal will not substantially alter access or circulation patterns at the Center. Main
aisleways will front the proposed buildings, as well as border the north side. Delivery trucks
will have direct access to the rear loading docks using an aisleway behind the in-line
buildings.
A Traffic Analysis was prepared by Austin-Foust Associates in November, 1995 which
concluded that the original renovation plan "will have an impact no worse than two percent
of the volume to capacity ratio at any critical intersection in the surrounding vicinity."
Austin-Foust Associates prepared an update Traffic Letter February 2, 1998 which
concludes that the Traffic Study remains valid.
Correspondence Received - None.
R:\STAFFRPT~12PA98.PC 3/25198 klb 3
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designatio_n for the site is CC Community Commercial. Existing
zoning for the site is also CC Community Commercial. The arts and crafts store and future
retail is a permitted use with the approval of a development ~lan pursuant to Chapter 17.05
of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consi:-' =~nt with the Development
Code and the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was prepared for Planning Application No. PA95-0114 and adopted by the
Planning Commission on December 4, 1995 which analyzed the impacts of the renovation
plan. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, these effects would not be considered significant due
to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval for
the project. Mitigation measures were provided to address any potentially significant
impacts.
The project is consistent with the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Therefore, no additional environmental review is required. Applicable mitigation measures
contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA95-0114 will
apply to this component of the project.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project consists of a site plan and elevations for retail renovation to the existing Tower
Plaza Shopping Center. The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code
and the General Plan. The project is consistent with the previously adopted Mitigated
Negative Declaration, and no additional environmental review is required.
FINDINGS
The proposed use conforms to all Genera' Plan requirements and with all applicable
requirements of State law and City ordinances. The, -oject is a permitted use within
the CC Community Commercial zone and is consistent with the objectives of the
General Plan land use designation. The proposed use complies with California
Government Code Section 65360.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land
and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding
property. The project is located in an area of existing and proposed commercial
development.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed
project as conditioned complies with the standards contained within the City's
General Plan and Development Code.
R:\STAFFRPT~12PA98,PC 3/25/98 klb 4
,
The project has access to dedicated rights-of-way which is open to, and useable by,
vehicular traffic. Access to the project is from publicly maintained roadways.
The design of the project and 'the type of improvements do not conflict with
easements for access through or use of the property within the project.
Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Exhibits - Blue Page 20
B.
C
D.
E,
F.
G.
H.
Vicinity Map
General Plan Map
Zoning Map
Site Master Plan
Site Plan (Project)
Elevations/Landscape Plan/Signage
Side Elevations/Section Plaza Sketch
Floor Plans
R:\STAFFRPT',12PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
R:\STAFFRPTX12PA98,PC 3125/98 klb ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA98-0012 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN
REVISION),. THE REPLACEMENt OF 15,625 SQUARE
FEET OF RETAIL SPACE WITH THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 23,462 SQUARE
FOOT ARTS AND CRAFTS RETAIL STORE AND 23,500
SQUARE FEET OF GENERAL RETAIL SPACE, IN TWO
PHASES, ON 26.69 ACRES, LOCATED AT 27511 YNEZ
ROAD, IN THE TOWER PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD AND YNEZ ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 921-270-034
WHEREAS, AEW/LBA Acquisition Co., LLC filed Planning Application No. PA98-
0012, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0012 was processed including, but not
limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0012,
on April 1, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City
staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition
to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA98-0012;
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 and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. _F_iadjag~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. PA98-0012 (Development Plan Revision) hereby makes the following findings as required
by Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code;
B. 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.
R:\STAFFRPT~12PA98.I'C 3/25/98 klb 7
C. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare.
D. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed project as
conditioned complies with the standards contained within the City's General Plan and
Development Code.
E. The project has access to dedicated fights-of-way which is open to, and useable by,
vehicular traffic. Access to the project is from publicly maintained roadways.
F. The design of the project and the type of improvements do not conflict with
easements for access through or use of the property within the project.
G. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and heroin incorporated by reference.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared for Planning
Application No. PA95-0114 and adopted by the Planning Commission on December 4, 1995
which analyzed the impacts of the ranovation plan. The Initial Study determined that although
the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects would not
be considered significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the
Conditions of Approval for the project. Mitigation measures were provided to address any
potentially significant impacts.
The project is consistent with the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Therefore, no additional environmental review is required. Applicable mitigation measures
contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA95-0114 will
apply to this component of the project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves i _nning Application No. PA98-0012 (Development Plan Revision) for
the replacement of ~5,625 square feet of retail space with the design, construction and operation
of a 23,462 square tbot arts and crafts retail store and 23,500 square feet of general retail space,
in two phases, on 26.69 acres, located at 27511 Ynez Road, in the Tower Plaza shopping center
at the northwest comer Rancho California Road and Ynez Road, and known as Assessor's
Parcel No. 921-270-034, suDject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached
hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
R:\STAFFRPT\12PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 8
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFFED this first day of April, 1998.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the first day of April,
1998 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRPT'xI2PA98.FC 3125/98 klb ~
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRYI~I2PA98.PC 3/25/98 lab 10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA98-0012 - Development Plan Revision
Project Description: The replacement of 10,480 square feet of retail space with the
design, construction and operation of a 23,462 square foot arts and crafts retail store
and 23,500 square feet of general retail space, in two phases, on 26.69 acres, located
at 27511 Ynez Road, in the Tower Plaza shopping center at the northwest corner of
Rancho California Road and Ynez Road
Assessor's Parcel No.
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
921-270-034
April 1, 1998
April 1, 2000
PLANNING DIVISION
General Requirements
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims,
actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void,
annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in
furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the
voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the
both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated
by this approval.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved
Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA95-0114o
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit
"D" (Site Master Plan), Exhibit "E" (Site Plan - Project), and Exhibit H (Site Plan/Floor
Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning
Division.
R:\STAFFRPT~12PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 11
Proposed parking areas shall be striped in conformance with Table 17.24.050
of the Development Code for angled stalls.
Building elevations shall s~jbstantially conform to the approved Exhibit
(Elevations/Landscape Plan/Signage) and Exhibit "G" (Side Elevation, Plaza Sketch),
contained on file with the Community Development Department - ~lanning Division. All
mechanical and roof equipment shall be screened from public view by architectural
features integrated into the design of the structure.
If the Future Tenant building is not constructed concurrently with the Michaels
building, the applicant shall submit a plan for interim architectural
embellishments and landscaping for review and approval by the Planning
Manager.
The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list
of approved colors and materials and with Exhibit "1" (Color and Material Board),
contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division.
Any deviation from the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the
Community Development Director.
Color
Roof Tile
Major wall areas
Storefront
Fascia beam
Accent walls
Matchup to existing buildings
Frazee 8702W - Beige Pediment
Frazee 8595D - Elm Court
Frazee 8225D - Autumn Wheat
Frazee AC113N - Spiced Rum
Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "F"
(Elevations/Landscape Plan/Signage), Exhibit "F" (Side Elevations/Plaza Sketch), and
Exhibit H (Site Plan/Floor Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be
continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager and the
Temecula Development Code. 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. The
continued m~ tenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the
developer or any successors in interest.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Comrn,.aity Development Department - Planning Division staff, and
return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
for their files.
The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, G, H or I" , (Site Plan, Landscape Plan,
Elevations, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will
be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff.
R:\STAFFRPT~I2PA98,PC 3/25/98 klb 12
10.
The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of
approved Exhibit "l" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved
architectural elevations. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall
be readable on the photographic prints.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
11. A Consistency Check fee shall be per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
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 Exhibits "F", "G" and "H" or as amended
by these conditions. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the
plants shall 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).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
13.
An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any
signage not included on Exhibits "F" , or as amended by these conditions.
A separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved
Exhibit "F", or as amended by these conditions.
14.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with
the approved construction plans and shall 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.
15.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to
guarantee the maintenance of the planrings, 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.
R:I,STAFFRPT\I2PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 13
16.
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 Sym_bol 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 8C :nches 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:
"Unauthorize: 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 bh~e paint of at least
3 square feet in size.
17,
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
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
18.
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.
19.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans sna. 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 e Grading Permit
20.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion cont-ol measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
21.
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.
R:I, STAFFRPT~I2PA98.PC 3/25/98 klb 14
22.
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.
23.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
24.
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.
25.
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
26.
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.
27.
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.
28.
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
29.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Department of Public Works
R:\STAFFRPT~12PA9g.PC 3/25/9g klb 15
30.
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.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
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.
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.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval.
Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
Ordinance No, 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be M.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
Provide Demolition permits and final approvals for all existing buildings (i.e. finialed
inspection of Demo permits.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,
1994)
Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
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.
45. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
R:\STAFFRF]7\I2pA98.PC 3/25/98 lab 16
46.
47.
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.
48.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal.
49. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
50.
A preconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
51.
Revised roof drainage plan of existing Von's store required at time of plan check to
address drainage concerns raised at DRC hearings.
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.
52.
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.
53.
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 2250
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)
54.
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 450 feet apart and shall be
located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access
road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be
required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
55.
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)
56.
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
R:\STAFFRFI~I2PA98.PC 3125/98 Idb 17
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
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 ~oads 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 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, "Blue Reflective
IV~rkers" 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)
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,
R:\STAFFRPTH2PA98.PC 3/25/98 Idb 18
smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access
roads. (UFC Article 81)
65.
Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled
combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety
features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class
and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains,
Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing
high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions Uniform Fire Code Article
81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (UFC Article 81)
OTHER AGENCIES
66.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated February 5, 1998, a
copy of which is attached.
67.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated February 6, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
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's Signature
R:\STAFFRFI'XI2PA98.PC 3/25/98 lab 19
TO:
FROM:
uOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: Februar_x 5. 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Carole K. Donahoe
(4/~GREGOR DELLENBACH. Environmental Health Specialist
PLOT PLAN NO. PA98-0012
The Department of Environmental Health has revie~ved the Plot Plan No. PA98-00I 2 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are
required:
a~ "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
bt Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted. including a fixture
schedule. a finish schedule. and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference. please contact Food
Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022.
c) A clearance letter fi'om the Hazardous Sen, ices Materials Management Branch (909~ 694-5055
wiIl be required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks. Ordinance #617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Sen, ices. Ordinance #615.3.
· tlazardous \x.:aste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2).
· Waste reduction management. I. D
3. \Vaste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA).
GI):dr
190o> 275-8980
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered. can be applicable at time of Building
Plan review tbr final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
cc: l)oug Thompson
~tand3b doc
Waist
February 6, 1998
Ms. Carole Donahoe,' Case Planner
City of Temecula
PIe,ruing Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
::EB 0 9 ]998
By
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL MAP 17454
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0012
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, woui: 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.
Ware- availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If the proposed development requires the relocation of existing RCWD
, ,,.,,,.,,., .........facilities, the developer will be responsible for the relocation of these
,;,., ...,., .r,..~,.. ,,,'facilities.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this offi'cc.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
,/~42.x.~ ~-"----'~"--~ '
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
981SB mrO311FO121FCF
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT\I2PA98.PC 3/25/9g klb 20
CITY OF TEMECULA
'>LANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0012 (Development Plan Revision)
EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April I, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA
CC
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0012 (Development Plan Revision)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April I, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA
Interstate 15
E-.-': :--' ~' ....
'>LANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0012 (Development Plan Revision)
EXHIBIT D SITE MASTER PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA -
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0012
EXHIBIT E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
~LANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0012 (Development Plan Revision)
EXHIBIT F ELEVATIONS/LANDSCAPE/SIGNAGE
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April I, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA -
Side Elevation at Future Tenant
;-~,' , ~r
~., ' ' Pedestrian Plaza SKetch
Section A
""1
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0012
EXHIBIT G SIDE ELEVATION/PLAZA SKETCH
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA
'LANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0012
FXHIBIT H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998
SITE PLAN/FLOOR PLAN
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 1, 1998
Planning Application No. PA97-0327 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28857)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA97-0327;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0327; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning
Application No. PA97-0327 (Tentative Parcel Map No.
28657, Amended No. 5) based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Westside City I1 LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Bill Dendy
PROPOSAL:
The reparcelization of 58 acres of industrially zoned property,
which is a portion of Tentative Parcel Map No. 24086, into nine
(9) lots, in two (2) phases.
LOCATION:
Northwesterly of Remington and Diaz Road
EXISTING ZONING:
LI- Light Industrial
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
PI - Public Institutional and LI - Light Industrial
LI - Light Industrial
OS-C - Conservation and BP - Business Park
LI - Light Industrial
PROPOSED ZONING:
N/A
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
BP - Business Park
R:\STAFFRF~327PA97,PC 3/25/98 klb ]
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
~outh:
East:
West:
City of Temecula property
Vacant and industrial buildings
Murrieta Creek
Vacant
BACKGROUND
Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657 was submitted on September 22, 1997 and a Development
Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on October 9, 1997. Issues of concern included
the alignment of the Western Bypass, the proposed phasing of the project, the project drainage
plan, the fault zone delineation, the Phase II study for archaeological resources, biological
review, architectural guidelines for Westside Business Centre, and ~iverside County geologic
review. Additionally, staff and the applicant attempted to resolve issues relating to a new
Development Agreement for Westside Business Centre that would replace Development
Agreement No. 90-1 and include all property under Westside Business Centre ownership.
The map has gone through five amendments and revisions. The applicant requested that the
map be processed separately from the Development Agreement, and the project was deemed
complete on March 13, 1998 and set for public hearing.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657 is a redesign from 49 one-acre parcels to nine lots that range
in size from 5.55 net acres to 7.50 net acres, with the mean at 6.51 acres. This map replaces
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24086, approved by the City Planning Commission in 1991. With
this redesign, the applicant intends to meet market demand for larger industrial users.
ANALYSIS
Access, Traffic and Circulation
A traffic study was prepared for several parcel maps within the Westside Business Centre in
1990, and the study's recommendations were incorporated in conditions of approval for the
previously approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 24086. The study indicated that srojected
future traffic would generate a peak hour Level of Service D or better at all intersectio:s within
the scope of the study. The proposed project was reviewed and an updated Traffic Letter was
submitted on October 3, 1997 by RKJK Associates which indicated * ~'. the consolidation of
smaller lots to larger lots would result in no changes in trip generation. The original study's
recommendations shall apply to the proposed map.
Access is restricted along portions of Winchester Road and Diaz Road. The Public Works
Department has conditioned the tentative map to relinquish and waive right of access to and
from Diaz Road with the exception of two restricted right-in-right-out access openings for
parcels 1 and 6 respectively.
R:\STAFFEPTX327PA97.PC 3/25198 klb 2
Western BVDaSS Alignment
The General Plan identifies the Western Bypass as near the subject property. Subsequent
analysis has shown that the Western Bypass Road will need to be adjacent to this site. The
applicant's engineer has met with Public Works engineers to determine the alignment of the
Western Bypass (Via Industria) and the location of the intersection with Winchester Road.
Amendment No. 5 of Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657 reflect this alignment.
Fault Hazards
The site is traversed by a fault. The geologic report prepared for the underlying parcel map
defined a fault zone with two branches and recommended a restricted use zone 150 feet wide,
The August 29, 1997 EnGEN report further defined the restricted use zone, varying its width
from 120 feet at the south boundary to 170 feet at the northern boundary. Mitigation
measures shall require that no structures for human occupancy be permitted within the
restricted use zone. All other mitigation recommendations from the Geologic Reports and the
County Geologist shall be conditions of approval for this project.
Liouefaction Potential
Portions of the site are susceptible to liquefaction and subsidence. Liquefiable soils are present
in the lower lying portions of the site. Liquefaction may induce surface subsidence on the site
in the range of O. 1 to 1.4 inches. The Geologic Report recommends that the effects of
liquefaction, including loss of bearing capacity, surface subsidence and lateral spreading should
be re-evaluated for each individual structure when grading and building plans become available.
Soils reports addressing these issues shall be made a condition of approval for any future
development on the subject parcel map. The soils reports will 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.
Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is
consistent with Uniform Building Code standards.
Flood Hazard
Approximately half of the project is located within a dam inundation area and within the 100-
year Flood Boundary of Mumeta Creek as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report. The project will be protected from flooding by the construction
of storm drain improvements and by elevating any future building sites above the Murrieta
Creek Floodplain elevation of 1026. 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. After mitigation measures are in place, no significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFR2T~27PA97.PC 3/25/98 klb 3
Biological linDacts
Biological surveys of the site found no evidence of the presence of any plant or animal species
classified as rare or endangered, including the recently listed Quino Checkerspot Butterfly.
Further mitigations may be required by State and Federal resource agencies relative to channel
improvements for Murrieta Creek, which Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657 identifies as a
remainder parcel.
Archaeological Resources
An archaeological assessment was conducted at the site and no sites were located during the
survey activities. However, subsequent surveys recorded an archaeological site (CA-RIV-237),
and the Eastern Information Center at the University of California Riverside has requested a
Phase II survey be conducted over the non-flat area of the site. The Pechanga Indian Cultural
Resources Committee completed a walk-over at the site and recommends that 8 professional
archaeologist complete a field survey and report of findings prior to earth-moving activities to
the west of the toe of the existing slope. These recommendations shall be incorporated as
conditions of approval for the proposed parcel map and for the issuance of grading permits for
Phase I and Phase II of the project site.
Paleontological Resources
The site is located in the fossiliferous Pauba Formation. A paleontological survey conducted
on the site found no fossils, but the survey noted that there was considerable potential and
recommended full-time monitoring during grading. The proposed map shall be conditioned to
provide monitoring, and with this mitigation measure in place, no significant impacts are
anticipated.
Landscaoe and Architectural Standards
Development in the Westside Business Centre is covered by an Architectural Guideline and
Design Manual on file in the Planning Department. Future developmen: on the project site will
be required to comply with these standards. Landscaping within the Centre shall also comply
with the City's Development Code for slope planrings, parking lots and perimeter landscaping.
Corresoondence Received
During the processing of this case staff received correspondence from the California Indian
Legal Services, and phone inquiries from the Tribal Council of the Pechanga Indian Reservation.
Both entities have been kept !nformed of the progress of this case, received copies of the
Environmental Assessment ana the Notice of Public Hearing.
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. Tentative Parcel Map 28657, Amended No. 5 is consistent with the
General Plan and conforms to the requirements of the LI Light Industrial zone.
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 proposed project is a reparcelization of industrially zoned property into fewer and larger lots
that are intended to meet the demand by industrial users for development on a minimum of 5
acres. The design of the project is consistent with the General Plan, zoning standards and
already developed property in the vicinity. The design of the project and Conditions of
Approval have addressed environmental concerns regarding this project. Staff recommends
approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657, Amended No. 5 subject to the Conditions of
Approval.
FINDINGS
The proposed land division and the design of the project is consistent with the City's
General Plan and the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development.
The design of the proposed land division is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Studies
were conducted at the site which found no evidence of rare or endangered species,
including the recently listed Quino Checkerspot Butterfly.
The design of the proposed land division is not likely to cause serious public health
problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan,
Development Code, Subdivision and other ordinances. The project is consistent with
these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project to assure
that future development at the site conforms to City Standards and Design Guidelines
for the Westside Business Centre.
The design of the proposed land division will not conflict with easements, acquired by
the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land
division. The project has been designed with access restriction to Diaz Road and
portions of Winchester Road. The Public Works Department has conditioned the
tentative map to relinquish and waive right of access to and from Diaz Road with the
exception of one shared/reciprocal access opening for parcels 1 and 6.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657, Amended No. 5 conforms to the logical development
of the proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
R:\STAFFRFI~27pAgq. PC 3/25/98 lifo 5
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 7
A. Conditions of Approvaj - Blue Page 11
Initial Study - Blue Page 25
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 40
Exhibits - Blue Page 47
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C, General Plan Map
D. Map
R:\STAFFRPT~27PA97.PC 3/25/98 klb 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO.
R:\STAFFRPTX327PA97.PC 3/25/98 klb 7
ATfACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0327 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 28657, AMENDED NO. 5) TO SUBDIVIDE 58 ACRES
INTO NINE PARCELS LOCATED NORTHWESTERLY OF
REMINGTON AND DIAZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR~S PARCEL NOS. 909-370-009, -004, -005 AND
909-120-021.
WHEREAS, Westside City II LLC filed Planning Application No. PA97-0327 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Riverside County
Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0327 was processed including, but not
limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0327
on April 1, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City
staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition
to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA97-0327;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERNIINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. ~ That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PA97-0237, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 7.1 of
County Ordinance No. 460:
A. That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific
plans.
B. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
R:\STAFFRPT~327PA97.FC 3/25/98 klb 8
C. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of
development.
D. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed
density of the development.
E. That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat. Studies were conducted at the site which found no evidence of rare or
endangered species, including the recently listed Quino Checkerspot Butterfly.
F. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not
likely to cause serious public health problems.
G. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property
within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate
easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to
ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record
or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. The project has
been designed with access resU'ic~on to Diaz Road and portions of Winchester Road. The Public
Works Department has conditioned the tentative map to relinquish and waive fight of access to
and from Diaz Road with the exception of one shared/reciprocal access opening for parcels 1 and
6.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA97-0327 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657,
Amended No. 5) for the subdivision of 58 acres into nine parcels located northwesterly of
Remington and Diaz Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-370-009, -004, -005 AND
909-120021, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference.
R:\STAFFRiYr~27PA97.PC 3/25/98 klb 9
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this first day of April, 1998.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the first day of April,
1998 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFKPTx327pA97.PC 3/25/98klb 10
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT\327PA97.FC 3/25/98 k/b ] 1
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0327 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657)
Project Description:
The reparcelization of 58 acres of industrially zoned property,
which is a portion of Tentative Parcel Map No. 24086, into nine
(9) lots, in two (2) phases.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-370-009, -004, -005 and 909-120-021
Approval Date: April 1, 1998
Expiration Date: April 1, 2000
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department -
Planning Division 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 I$1,250.00) 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 Community
Development Department - Planning Division 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 tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions
listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act
and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims,
actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void,
annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in
furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof,
advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the
R:\STAFFRPT~327pA97,PC 3/25198 Idb 12
voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the
both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
Within 15 days the applicant shall submit an amended tentative parcel map exhibit to
reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community
Development Department o Planning Division.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Division.
A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review and approval. All onsite cut and fill slopes shall:
Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to 1 and a maximum vertical height of
thirty (30) feet. Setbacks from top and bottom of slopes shall be a minimum of
one-half the slope height.
b. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots.
All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to the
City Development Code.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped
areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities
of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
10.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that
ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid,
11.
A qualified paleontologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and
comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts,
A meeting between the paleontologist, Community Development Department - Planning
Division staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations
and the excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist or representative shall have
the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of
fossils. The paleontologist shall be onsite to monitor grading operations and submit a
summary report to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits.
12.
A qualified archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment
on the proposed grading with respect to potential archaeological impacts. A meeting
R:I,STAFFRFB327PA97.PC 3/25/98 klb 13
between the archaeologist, Community Development Department - Planning Division
staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the
excavation shall be arranged.. The archaeologist or representative shall have the
authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow identification,
evaluation, treatment, sealing or capping, reburial or appropriate disposition, collection,
mapping or avoidance of significant cultural resources.
13.
A qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Phase II Study of the site beginning from the
toe of slope and commencing westerly to the site boundary. Based upon the results,
the extent of further sampling and data collection will be determined.
14.
A qualified archaeologist shall monitor grading activities and submit a summary report
to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits.
15.
A Native American representative shall be present during archaeological test and during
grading.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
16. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS).
c. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's
CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The
CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open
space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all
buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways.
ii.
No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a
corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has
been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or
jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common
areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power
to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority
to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features
of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's
which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or
dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of
maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit
enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of
Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this
requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such
sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for
public purposes.
R:\STAFFRFB327PA97.FC 3/25/98 klb 14
iii.
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to
such dwelling unit or lot, either {1) an undivided interest in the common
areas and fac!lities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting
membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
17,
Building Plans shall conform to the Architectural Guideline and Design Manual on file in
the Planning Department for the Westside Business Centre.
18. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans prepared in
accordance with the City's Development Code. The location, number, genus,
species, and container size of the plants shall 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).
ii. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
iii.
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).
The locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the
tentative map.
vi.
Automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of
all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets
and adjacent property for:
(1)
Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of
building permits for any lot(s),
(2) Private common areas prior to issuance of a building permit.
(3)
All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District
(TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall
include, but may not be limited to private slopes and common
areas.
(4)
Shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to
a public right-of-way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger,
R:/STAFFEPT~27pAg~.PC 3125/98 klb 15
Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including
all structural setback m. easurements.
19.
If roof-mounted mechanical equipment is proposed, it shall be designed and located
behind architectural features that screen it from public view.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
20.
If deemed necessary by the Planning Manager, the applicant shall provide additional
landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project.
21.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall 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.
22. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for insoection.
23.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period
of one year, 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.
24.
The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer.
Landscaping installed 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.
25.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
In reference to the conditions of approval for this land division, the Fire Prevention Bureau
requires the following fire protection measures to be provided in accordance with the Uniform
Fire Code and the City of Temecula Ordinances.
26.
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, use,
Uniform Building Code (UBC), Uniform Fire Code (UFC), and related codes which are in
force at the time of building plan submittal.
27.
Approved super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 Ya" outlets) shall be located at each street
intersection and be spaced not more than 350 feet apart, with no portion of any lot
R:\STAFFRF~3T/pA97.PC 3/25/98
frontage further than 180 feet from a fire hydrant. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2 and Appendix
Ill-B)
28.
The water mains shall be capable of providing a potential fire flow of 4000 GPM for a
4 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available prior to
any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot.
29.
Maximum cul-de-sac or dead end road length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum
turning radius for any cul-de-sac or dead end road more than 150 feet shall have a
minimum turning radius of forty-five (45) feet. (UFC 902.2.2.2.3, Ord 460)
30.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 & 902.2.2)
31.
Prior to construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved
Fire Department vehicle access roads (all weather surface) for 70,000 Ibs GVW with
a minimum AC thickness of ,25 feet provided prior to construction. (UFC 8704.2 &
902.2.2.2.2)
32.
Prior to construction, fire apparatus 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 902.2.2.2.1 & ORD 95-15)
33.
Prior to construction, dead end road ways and streets which have not been completed
shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4)
34.
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 sec. 1-4.1 )
35.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective
Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations in accordance with City
specifications. (UFC 901.4.3)
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost
tc any Government Agency.
R:\STAFFRIriX327PA97.PC 3/25/98 Idb 17
General Requirements
36.
It is understood that the Develo_per correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
37.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the
Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the
City-maintained road right-of-way.
38.
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.
39.
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 Approval of the Parcel Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
40.
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
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City of Temecula Fire Bureau
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
41.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Department of Public Works:
Improve Winchester Road (Via Industria) along the north side of Parcels 6, 7, 8
and 9 and improve Winchester Road along the west side of Parcels 5 and 9 to
include dedication of half-width street right-of-way (Major Highway Standard -
1OO' R/W), installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and
gutter, sidewalk, street lights, storm drainage facilities, signing and striping and
utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
Improve Diaz Road (Major Highway Standards - 100' RAN) to include dedication
of full width street right-of-way, installation of full width street improvements,
R:\STAFFRPTX327PAg?.FC 3/25/98 klb ~8
42.
43.
44.
paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, storm drainage facilities, signing
and striping and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
Improve Remington A~;enue (Principal Collector Highway Standards - 78' R/VV)
to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of sidewalk,
street lights, storm drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but
not limited to water and sewer).
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the
design of the street improvement plans:
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos.
400 and 401.
Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the
project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining
properties.
d. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113.
e. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section.
f. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV
shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provider.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or
other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Diaz Road on the Parcel Map with the
exception of two restricted right-in/right-out access openings for Parcels 1 and 6,
respectively. The width of the restricted right-in/right-out accesses shall conform to City
Standard No. 207.
R:\STAFFRPT\327PA97.PC 3/25/98 Idb 19
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian
facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County
Standard No. 805.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the
public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or
abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved
by the Department of Public Works.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part
of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section.
Prior to City Council approval of the Parcel Map, the Developer shall make an application
for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency,
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the
Parcel Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the
map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval. The following information shall be on the ECS:
a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
b. Special Study Zones.
c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
d. Archeological resources found on the site.
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.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of
the Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such
agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City
to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision.
Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount
given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
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" or "Medians in accordance with the General Plan". The form of the
offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
R:\STAFFRPTX327PA97.PC 3/25/98 klb 20
53.
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. approval prior to recordation of the Parcel Map. A permit
from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for
work within their Right-of-Way.
54.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated and noted on the Parcel Map.
55.
An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to approval of the Parcel
Map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
56.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on ~e Parcel Map if they are located within the land
division boundary. All offers of oedication and conveyances shall be submitted for
review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage
facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage
easements and shown on the Parcel Map. A note shall be added to the final map stating
"drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
57.
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
Riverside County Health Department
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
58.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City
of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
59.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils 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 preliminary pavement sections.
60.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering
geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan
check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical
hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report
R:\STAFFRPTx327PA97.PC 3/25/98 10b 21
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and
liquefaction.
A Drainage Study shall be prel~ared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream
of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private,
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an
adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public
or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy
of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the
storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis
for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
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 flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) by either
cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits (unless deferred to a later
date by RCFC&WCD), 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.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work
performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone "AE"
and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans,
the Developer shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15.12 of the
Temecula Municipal Code for development within Flood Zone "AE". A Flood Plain
Development Permit is required prior to issuance of any permit. Residential subdivisions
shall obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) prior to occupancy of any unit. Commercial subdivisions may obtain
a LOMR at their discretion.
A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the Department
of Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a format
acceptable to the Department and include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities.
R:\STAFFRPT~2?PAefl. PC 3F25/98 ki°o 22
b. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
Ce
The impact to the site f~'om any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard
map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway
shall be shown on the improvement plan.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
68. Parcel Map 28657 shall be approved and recorded.
69.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
70.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards
and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
71.
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 Certificates of Occupancy
72.
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
73.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
74.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
75.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due
to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT~327PA97.PC 3/25/98 klb 23
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
76.
Prior to installation of street !ights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes
first, the applicant, or his assignee, shall pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of
arterial street lights into the TCSD maintenance program.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit
77.
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.
OTHER AGENCIES
78.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood
Control District's transmittal dated October 15, 1997, a copy of which is attached. The
fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District' by either a
cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless
deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan
fee.
79.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 8, 1997, a
copy of which is attached.
80.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated October 7, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
81,
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in Eastern Information
Center's transmittal dated March 19, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
82.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the United States
Department of the Interior transmittal dated October 27, 1997, a copy of which is
attached.
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 Signature
Date
R:XSTAFFRFrLt27PA97.PC 3125198 klb 24
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATERCONSERVATION DISTRICT
October 15, 1997
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
42128.]
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Attention: Ms. Carole Dorahoe
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Parcel Map 28657
PA 97-0327
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions
or other land use cases in incorporated Cities. The District also
does not plan check City land use cases, or provide State Division of
Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases.
District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited
to items of specific interest to the District including District
Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and
draqnage facilities which could be considered a logical component or
extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan
fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a
general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the
proposed project in detail and the following comments do not in any
way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the
proposed project wibh respect to flood hazard, public health and
safety, or any other such issue.
PA 97-0327 is a proposal for reparcelization of a portion of Tentative
Parcel Map 28657, subdividing 58 acres of industrial property into
nine lots northwesterly of Remington and Diaz Roads.
The property is located adjacent to Murrieta Creek and is subject to
severe flood hazards from Murrieta Creek. Approximately one half of
the parcel is within the 100 year Zone AE flood plain limits for
Murrieta Creek as delineated on Panel No. 060742-00005B of the Flood
Znsurance Rate Maps issued in conjunction with the National Flood
Znsurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA).
A District flood study determined the base flood elevation for a
master plan flow rate of 38,300 cfs to be 1025.36 at the upstream edge
of the property. The elevation on the PEMA map for a flow rate of
30,900 cfs is 1024.00 at the upstream edge of the property. All the
elevations are based on 1929 NGVD.
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Re: Parcel Map 28657
PA 97-0327
-2- October 15, 199'
Because of the extreme hazard posed by Murrieta Creek, the City should
consider not allowing development to proceed adjacent to the creek
until the ultimate improvement can be constructed, Property adjacent
to the creek and within the flood plain should be conditioned to
construct the required improvements or participate in a financing
mechanism such as an assessment district to ensure necessary
improvements are constructed.
If the City chooses to allow development to proceed, it should
condition the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans or
other information needed to meet FEMA requirements. The right of way
for the ultimate Murrieta Creek in this area is 230 feet each side of
the centerline. This includes a 50-foot habitat mitigation strip on
each side which will be returned if it is not needed. This is shown
correctly on the extension of time exhibit. This project is located
within the limits of the District's Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley
Area Drainage Plan for which drainage ~ees have been adopted;
applicable fees should be paid by cashier's check or money order to
the Flood Control District or City prior to final approval of
project, or in the case of a parcel map or subdivision prior
recordation of the final map. Fees to be paid should be at the rate
in effect at the time of recordation, or if deferred, at the time of
assuance of the actual permit.
r~estions regarding this matter may be directed to me at 909/275-1214.
Very truly yours,
STUART E, MCKTBBZN
Senior Civil Engineer
SM:slj
October 8. 1997
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula. CA 92589
ATTN: Carole Donahoe:
RE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28657: PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP
NO. 4606 AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 6 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 75
THEREOF.
(9 LOTS)
Dear Gentlemen:
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657 and
recommends:
A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the ~vater system shall be
submitted in triplicate. with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the
original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shaI1 show the internal pipe diameter, location
of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of
the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5. Part 1.
Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code. Title 11,
Chapter 16. and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of
California. when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and xvater company
with tile following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Parcel Map No.
28657 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Rancho California Water
District and that the water services. storage, and distribution system will be adequate to provide
water service to such Parcel Map". This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will
supply water to such Parcel Map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or
any other purpose. This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water
company. The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to revie~v at least TWO
WEEKS PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map.
This subdivision has a statement from Eastern Municipal Water District agreeing to serve domestic
water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial
arrangements are completed xvith the subdivider. It will be necessan.l for financial arrangements to
be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final map.
John M. Fanning. Director
4065 County Circle Drive · Riverside. CA 92503 ,, Phone (909) 358-5316 · FAX (909) 358-5017
(Mailing Address - P.O. Box 7600 .' Riverside, CA 92513-7600)
City, of Temecula Planning I
Page Two
Attn.: Carole Donahoe
October 8, 1997
This subdivision is ~vithin the Rancho California Water District and shall be connected to the
sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as
approved by the District. the City of Temecula and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing. to the
Citv of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete
profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the ne~v system to
the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a
portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the
sewer district with the following certification: ~'I certify that the design of the sewer system in
Parcel Map No. 28657 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Rancho
Caliti3rnia Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the
anticipated wastes from the proposed Parcel Map". The plans must be submitted to the City of
Temecula's Office to reviexv at least t~vo weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the
final map.
It will be necessary, for financial arrangements to be completely ~nalized PRIOR to recordation of
the final map.
It will be necessary tier the annexation proceedings to be completely ~nalized PRIOR to the
recordation of the final map.
Sincerely,
Gregor Dellenbach, Environmental Health Specialist IV
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
B, ancha
Water
October 7, 1997
Ms. Carole Donahoe, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Pest Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL MAP 28657, APN 909-120-052
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0327
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service
and sewer service is available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, customer will need to contact RCWD for fees
and requirements. 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
97\SB:ebI96IF012/FEG
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
Eastern InformaUon Center
Department of Anthropology
University of California
Riversirie, CA 92521-04~e~
Phone (909) 787-~
Fax (909) 787-54~
CLTL I, RESOURCE REVW, W
DATE: March 19, 1998
RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation: PA97-0327
Records at the Easters Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have been
reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phas~ I study is recorm~nended.
X A Phase I cultural resource study (MF #3513, & #2534) identified one or mon= cultural nsources.
__ 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 recorra-nended.
__ A Phase I cultural resource study (MF #
) identified no cultural resources. Funher study is not rcconunendcd.
__ There is a low probability of cultural resources. Funher study is not recommended,
__ If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diver'.ed in the immediat~ area while a qualified
__ Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a professional archaeologist.
X The submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for Ar~haeniogical Resource Management
Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning ttulletin 4(a), December 1989.
Phasel
X_X' Phase [I
Pha.~ llI
X Phase IV
COMMENTS: Given that the revisions to the impact area of this particular project have excluded the western
portion of the property where the archaeological site is located, only phase IV monitoring of earthmoving activities
is recommended. Before any work is done on the western half of the property, a phase II testing evaluation is
recommended to &termme the limits and possible significance of the archaeological site which is present on the
property.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
Bc~v~sxtv,~sMrr
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Caxlsbad Field Office
2730 Loker Avenue West
Cadsbad, California 92008
OCT 2 7 1997
Carole Donahoe
Project Planner
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Planning Application No. PA97-0327 (Tentative Parcel Map # 28657), City of Temecula,
Riverside County, Califomia
Dear Ms. Donahoe:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed tentative parcel map # 28657 for the
proposed reparcelization of a 58-acre (at.) parcel into 9 parcels in the City of Temecula, Riverside
County. The Service offers the following comments and recommendations on the biological
resources that could be affected by the proposed project based on our knowledge of sensitive and
declining species and habitat types in Riverside County.
It is the Service's policy to recommend avoidance and minimization of project induced impacts
and to mitigate the losses to fish and wildlife resources which are unavoidable as a result of
development projects. The Service understands that no direct impacts associated with the lot split
are proposed at this time. However, the Service is concerned about the sensitive species that may
be adversely affected by future projects after the subject parcel is subdivided.
The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife
resources and their habitats. Our responsibility includes providing comments on any public
notices issued tbr a Federal permit or license affecting the nation's waters, in particular, Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) permits issued pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act. The Service is also responsible for the administration
and enforcement of the Endangered Species Act (Act), including listing and recovery of
endangered species, incidental take permit issuance, and consultation with Federal agencies for
actions which may affect federally listed endangered species. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the
"take" (e.g. harm, harassment, pursue, injure, kill) of federally listed fish and wildlife species.
"Harm" is further defined as an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such acts may include
significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by
significantly impairing essential behavior patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50
CFR 17.3). "Take" can only be permitted pursuant to the pertinent language and provisions in
section 7 and section 10(a). Take provisions apply upon the effective date of listing in the Final
Rule published in the Federal Register.
Ms. Carole Donahoe
The Service understands that no direct. impacts to fish and wildlife resources or "take" of federally
listed species would result from the proposed subdivision of the subject parcel. However, the
Service is concerned tk 21 future development of the parcels could result in impacts to federally
listed species as well as other sensitive wildlife resources such as coastal sage scrub and wetland
habitats. Federally listed species which may potentially occur within, or adjacent to, the 58-ac.
parcel include Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodornys stephensi) (SKR), California gnatcatcher
(Polioptila californica californica) (;natcatcher), and Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydr3.'as
editha qumo) (butterfly). The Service recommends that any future project proposals address
unavoidable direct and indirect impacts to these species as well as impacts to coastal sage scrub
and wetland habitats. We recommend that appropriate biological surveys be conducted in order
to determine the occurrence offederally listed species and/or sensitive biological resources prior
to development of the subject property. The occurrence of SKR within the project area would
need to be quantified and mitigated appropriately according to the Riverside County Habitat
Conservation Agency's SKR Habitat Conservation Plan. The Service also recommends that the
applicant coordinate future development proposals with the Los Angeles District of the Corps in
regards to potential fill of waters of the U.S.
In summary, the Service would like the applicant to be aware of potential sensitive biological
resource issues when subdividing, selling or developing the parcel in question. We encourage the
applicant to coordinate with the Service on any future land use changes that could potentially
affect sensitive biological resources on the subject parcels. The Service appreciates the
opportunity to review and comment on the proposed parcel subdivision. If you have any
questions or comments please contact Doreen Stadtlander of my staff at (760) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
ailC.I Kobetic~f~h
Field Supervisor
1-6-97-HC-25
Westside City II LLC, Temecula, CA (attn: B. Dendy)
Southwest Land Consultants, Murrieta, CA (attn: M. Harrison)
CDFG, San Diego, CA (attn: B. Tippelts)
ACOE, Los Angeles, CA (attn: E. Stein)
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFPj~TX327pAg'/.PC 3/25/98 kl'o ~Z5
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
Project Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies
whose approval is required:
Planning Application No. PA97-0327 (Tentative Parcel
Map No. 28657)
City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
CA 92590
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Project Planner
(909) 694-6400
Northwesterly of Remington and Diaz Road
Bill Dendy, Westside City II LLC, 41975 Winchester Road,
Temecula, CA 92590
BP Business Park
LI Light Industrial
The reparcelizafion of 58 acres of industrial property, which
is a portion of Tentative Parcel Map No. 24086, into nine
(9) lots, in two (2) phases, and the grading of Phase I and
Phase II.
The area is a partially developed business park, with
existing buildings, facilities, buildings under construction,
rough graded pads and vacant properties. Muftieta Creek
runs along the eastern boundary of the business park.
Riverside County Agencies, including Water Conservation
and Flood Control District, and Environmental Health;
Eastern Mumcipal and Rancho Califorma Water Districts;
Southern California Gas and Edison Companies; General
Telephone; and the Temecula Valley Unified School
District
R:\STAFFRPT~27PA97.PC 3/25/98 klb 26
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 Sigm~cant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
IX] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality IX] Aesthetics
[X] Transportation/Circulation [X] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Finclings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I fred that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
sigm~cant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Signature Date: March 13. 1998
Printed Name' Carole K. Donahoe For: Cib' of Temecula
R:\STAFFRPTX327PA97.PC 3/25/98 klb 27
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning7
(Source l, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? [ ] [ ] [ ] [Xq
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(source 1, Figure 2-l, Page 2-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land nses)7
(Source l, Figure S-4, Page5-17) [ ] [ ] [ ]
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Discussion of the environmental impacts
la,b,c.
The project will not conflict with general plan designation or zoning, applicable anviroranental plans or polices
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project, nor is it incompatible with existing land uses in the vicinity.
The project is mt with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park), as well as the
Zoning of LI (Light Industrial). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the
Environmental Impact Report for (BIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented
on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency.
Mitigation measures approved with the Ell>, 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 set'aces are in proximity of the project site. No significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
1 d. The project will not affect agricultural resources or operations. Although the site is within an area designated as
farmlands of local impommce, the site is not under Williamson Act conlract, does not contain agricultural facilities,
nor is being actively fanned. The Westside Business Park is already partially developed, and the balance of the
Business Park has already been prepared for development, with infrasm~cture installed and In place. No significant
effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income
or minority community). The project is in an area surrounded by land that is currently planned to be developed
with similar industrial uses. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minority
commnmty) at this site. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSENG. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)7 [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
(Source l, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
R:\STAFFRPTX327PA97.PC 3/25/98 klb 28
ISSUF~ AND SUPPORTING INPOP, Y~ATION SOURCES
Discussion of the environmental impacis
2a. The project will not cttmulativeiy exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is a
reparcelization of 58 acres into 9 lots which are consistent with the City's General Plan. Since the project is
conmstent with the Cit3/s General Plan, and development on the parcels will be required to meet the floor area ratio
range for Business Park identified in the General Plan, it will not be a significant contributor to population grox~h
which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
2b. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent
with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. The project will cause people to relocate to or
within Ternecula; however, due to fls limited scale, it will not reduce substantial growth in the area. No significant
effects arc anticipated as a result of this project.
2c. 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.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to pl,tential impacts involving?
a. Faultrapture? (Source l, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6; Sources 4, 5,6) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
b. Seisrmc ground shaking? (See a.) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
c. Seisrmc ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
d. Seiche, tsunarm, or voleme hazard? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
e Landslides or mudflows? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
f Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soiI conditions
form excavation, grading or fill? [ ] IX] [ ] [ ]
g. Subsidence of the land7 (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
h. Expansive soils? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
i. Unique geologic or physical features? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Discussion of the environmental impacts
3a. The site is iraversed by a distract, throughgoing fault with evidence of Holocene-age activity. The geologic report
prepared for the underlying parcel map defined a fault zone with m'o branches and recommended a restricted use
zone 150 feet wide. The August 29, 1997 EnGEN repo~ further defmed the restricted use zone, varying its width
from 120 feet at the south boundary to 170 feet at the northern boundary. Mitigation measures shall require that
no structures for human occupancy be perrmtted within the restricted use zone. All other mitigation
recommendations fi'om the Geologic Reports and the County Geologist shall be conditions of approval for this
project
3b,c,g,h.
Portions of the site are susce~6ble to liquefaction and subsidence. Lique~able soils are present in the lower lying
poruons of the site. Liquefacuen may induce surface subsidence on the site in the range of 0.1 to 1.4 inches. The
Geologic Report mends that the effects ofhquefaction, including loss of bearing capacity, surface subsidence
and lateral spreading should be m-evaluated for each individual stracture when grading and building plans become
available. Soils reports addressing these issues shall be made a condition of approval for any future development
on the subject parcel map Thesoilsreportswillcontainrecommendationsforthecompactionofthesoilwhich
will serve to mitigate an)' potentially sigm~cant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure,
liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through
building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards.
R:\STAFFRPTX327pA97.PO 3/25/98 klb 29
Poeriley
S~.nt
3d. 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.
3e.
The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact for the City of
Terneeula 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.
3f.
Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the
project and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted. The project may result in changes hi siltation,
deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In
the long-m, hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion conlxol for the project. Potentially
unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping, the
retention of natural vegetation whonever feasible, the use of watering trucks and hydroseeding of disturbed areas
afler grading, and proper compacfion of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
3i. Theprojectwillnottmpaettmiquegeologicorphysicalfeatures. Nounique geologic features orphysical features
exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the
rate and amount of sufface mnofl? (Source7) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
b. Exposure ofpeople or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Page 7-10 and
Figure 7-4, Page 7-12; Source 7) [ ] IX] [ ] [ ]
c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration ofsurface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? (See a. and b.) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
d. Changes in the mount of surface water in any water
body? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? [ ] [ I [X] [ l
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquffer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
lossofgroundwaterreehergecapability? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
g. Altereddirectionorrateofflowofgroendwater? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
h. Impacts to groundwater quality? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Discussion of the environmental impacts
4a. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage paRems and the rate and amount of surface runoff.
tonsly permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape
and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoffwill 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.
R:\STAFFRFF~27PA97.PC 3/25/98 lifo 30
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
4b.
Approximately half of the project is locak:d within a darn inundation area and within the I O0-year Flood Boundary
of Muraleta Creek as identified in the City of Tcmecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. The
project will be protected from flooding by the construction of storm dram improvements and by elevating any
future building sites above the Murdeta Creck Floocblain elevation of1026. Impacts cma be mitigated by utilizing
existing emergency response systems and by assuring that these systems enntmue to maintain adequate service
provision as the City develops. After mitigation measures are in place, no significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
4c. The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface
water quality. Prior to issuance of a grlg permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with
the rext$ts of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System GqPDES) p~rrmt from the State Water
Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permatted 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~
4d,e.
The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface ~vater in any waterbody
or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Addit~;lnal surface runoff will occur because
previousl.v permeable ground will be rendered impervious by coustmction of buildings, accompanying bardscape
and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage will not considered
significant. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4f, g, h.
The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquffer by CULT or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in th~ 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. Less than significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
4i.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water otherwise available for
public water supphes. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City
of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho Califomia Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water
demands." Water sen,ice currently exists in the umrnediate proxirnity to the project. Water service will need to
bepro',~dedbyRanchoCalifomiaWaterDislrict(RCWD). Thjsistypicallyprovideduponcompletionoffinanclal
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a Violate any air quality standard or conlribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 1,
Page 2-29)
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors?
[1 [] [] [~
[1 [1 [] [~
[1 [] []
[1 [1 Ix]
R:\STAFFRFF~27PA97.PC 3/25/98 Idb 31
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING 1NFOILMATION SOURCES
Discussion of the environmental impads
5a. The project will not violate any air quality samdard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Fmure development on the parcels will I~ subject to the floor area ratio range speeilied wig the General Plan.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5b. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants in proximi~, to
the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5c. The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperatore, or cause any change in climate. The limited scale
of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the enviroment in this area. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5d. The project may create objectionable odom during the construction phase of the project, however these impacts
will be of short duration and are not considered significant.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Source 8) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
f Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
g Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
6a. A traffic study was prepared for several parcel maps within the Westside Business Park, and the study's
recommendations have been incorporated in conditions of approval for these maps. The study. indicated that
projected future traffic would generate a peak hour Level of Service D or better at all Intersections within the scope
of the study.. The proposed project was reviewed and an updated Traffic Letter was submitted which indicated that
the consolidation of smaller lots to larger lots would result in no change or a decrease in the intensity of traffic.
The original study's recommendations shall apply to the proposed map, which mchide the extension of Diaz Road,
the pmvisien of traffic signals at certain intersections, the restriping of WInchester Road, and the contribution to
the construction of the Overland crossing.
6b 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 trap acts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
6c.
The project will not result in inadcquate emergency access or access to nearby 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.
6d. Development in the project area will be conditioned to provide sufficient parking capacity on-site. Off-site
parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPTBT/PA97.PC 3/25/98 klb 32
6e. The project will not create hazards or b/rriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or beers to bicyclists have
not been included as part of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6f The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Development
in the project area will be conditioned to provide bicycle, motorcycle and pedesu-ian access end facilities. No
significant impacts are anticipated &s a result of this project.
6g. The project will not result in Impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none erasis currently xr_ me mediate
proxmuty of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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, ammals
and birds)? (Sourceg, lOandl4) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)7 (See a.) [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)? (See !'~ [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marar,, ::panan and vernal pool)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Discussion of the envirunmental impacts
7a 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. Biological
surveys have been conducted, at. the site, w .:~ch indicate that the site cannot be regarded as a significant biological
resource and is relatively devoid of biological resources. The Mumeta Creek area has been designated as a
remainder parcel on the map, and further mitigations may be required by State and Federal resource agencies
relative to channel improvements. 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 m !- location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to
the migration of arumals or deu.nnorate 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.
7b The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in
the Old Town Temecula Specktic Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since tlUs 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.
7c.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. A biological survey and
assessment was conducted at the site and determined that the site could not be regarded as significant. A biological
walkover and update was also conducted which determined that grading, prior agricultural uses and heavy sheep
grazing have already altered the site, making it devoid of significant biological resources and wildlife is virtually
non-existent. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7d.
The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. The Mumeta Creek area has been designated as a
remainder parcel on the map, and further mitigations may be required by State and Federal resource agencies
relative to channel improvements. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT~27PA97.PC 3/25/98 I~b 33
ISSUE3 AND SUPPORTiNG INFORMATION SOURCES
7e. The project will not result in an impact fo w~dlife dispersal or migration coredors. The project site does not serve
as part of a migration eomdor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
[] [] [1 [~
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Discussion of the environmental impacts
ga.
The project will not anpact 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 pernuts
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.
8b.
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.
8c. 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. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardons
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
c. Thecreationofanyhealthhazardorpotentialhealth
heard7 [ I [ ] [ ] [X]
d. Exposure ofpcople to existing sources ofpotential health
hazards? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x]
e. Increase fure hazard in areas with ~ammable brush,
grass, or trees? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
R:\STAFFP-FB327PA97.PC 3125198 klb 34
ISSUES AND SUP~3RTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Discussion of the environmental impacts
9a.
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 c~nditious since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport
or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. 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.
9b. 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.
9c. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. Development at the
project site will be reviewed for compliance witl'. 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.
9d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are knovm
to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9e. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with ~ammable brush, grass, or trees, The
project is in an area of induslrial/office/warehouse development. The project is not located within or proximate
to a frre hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels7 (Source 1, Page 8-9)
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels7
[] [] [x] [1
[ ] [ ] [x] [ ]
Discussion of the environmental impacts
10a The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currentIv vacant and
development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as wel[as increases
to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would be simila: :o existing and
proposed uses in the area. Less than significant noise mapacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the
short or long-tenn.
10b The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short run).
Cousln~tion machinet2¢ is capable ofproducthg noise in the range of ~ O+ 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 wilI be no long-term exposure of people to noise. Less than
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this proleer.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
sen'ices in any of the following areau:
a. Fire protection? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ]
b. Police protection? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ]
c. Schools? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ]
R:\STAFFRPT~27PA97.PC 3125/98 klb 35
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
d. Maintenance of public facilities, mchiding roads?
e. Other governmental ser, qecs?
[] [] [~ []
[] [] [] [~
Discussion of the environmental impacts
lla,b.
The project will have a less than significant hmpsct upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection.
The project will in~tcmentally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share
to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated aS a result
of this project.
llc.
The project will have a less than significant unpact 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 m a need for new or altgmd school facilities. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
lld.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding
for rnamtenanec 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 mamtenence 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. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
l l e, The project will not have an effect upon, or result hi a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.
12a.
12b
12c,
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gaS?
b. Commumcations systems?
c Local or regional water txeatment or distribution
facilities?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage7
f. Solid waste disposal7
g. Local or regional water supplies?
[l [] [] [~
[1 [3 [l [~
[] [] [1 [~
[] [l [] [~
[] [1 ~1 []
[] [1 [] [~
[1 [] [] [~
Discussion of the environmental impacts
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.
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.
The project will not restfit m the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water
treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRFF~27PA97.PC 3/25/98 klb 36
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
12d. The project will not result m a need for nclv systems or sapplies, 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 Ciiy's General Plan sta~: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an abili~! 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 Cit3_"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.
12e. 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. Less than significant impacts
az'. anticir: ed as a result of this project.
1212 The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any
potential trapacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source
Reduction and Recycling Programs wtuch are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
12g. The project will not result in a need for n:' , 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.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a seeroe vista or scenic highway?
b Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c Create light or glare?
[1 [1 [] [~
[] [1 [] [~
[] [x] [] [1
Discussion of the environmental impacts
13 .a Th. ?roject will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. Development in the project site shall be conditioned to
be compatible and consistent with existing industrial buildings in the Westside Business Center and to conform to its
Desig~ Manual~ The City does not have any desibnated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
13b The project will not have a negative effect. Development at the project site will be required to be consistent
development and the City's Design Guidelines. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project
13c The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce end result in
hght/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact
the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance
Regulating Light Pollution). With mitigation measures in place, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 2, Figure 55,
Page 280; Sottree 11) [ ] IX] [ ] [ ]
b D~ ~mrb archaeological resources? ,~urce 1, Figure 56,
Page283; Soureel2) [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
c. Affect historical resources? (Souroe 2. Page 281) [ ] [ ] [ ] IX]
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [X] [ ] [ ]
R:\STAFFRFi~27PA97.]?C 3F25/98 klb 37
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uges within the potential
impact area?
[] ~] [1 []
Discussion of the environmental impacts
14a. The site is located in the fossiliferous Pauba Formation. A paleontological survey conducted on the site found no
fossils, but the survey noted that there was considerable potential and recommended full-time monitoring during
grading. The proposed map shall be conditioned to provide monitoring, and with this mitigation measure in place,
no significant impacts are anticipated.
14b,d,e.
An archaeological assessment was conducted at the site and no sites were located during the survey activities.
However, subsequent surveys recorded an archaeological site (CA-R/V-237), and the Eastern Information Canter at
the University of California Riverside has requested a Phase II survey be conducted over the non-flat area of the site.
The Pechanga Indian Cultural Resources Contrmttee completed a walk-over at the site and recommends that a
professional archaeologist complete a field survey and report of findings prior to earth-moving activities to the west
of the toe of the existing slope. These recommendations shall be incorporated as conditions of approval for the
proposed parcol map and for the issuance ofgreding permits for Phase I and Phase II of the project site.
14.c. The site is not listed as an identified historical site in the inventory contained in the City's General Plan Final
Environmental Impact Report. No significant impacts are anticipated as a restfit of this project.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities? [ ] [ ] [X] [ ]
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ ] [ ] IX] [ ]
Discussion of the environmental impacts
lSa,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 Temeculs. However, it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhoed
or regional parks or other recreahonal facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational
resources or opportumties. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or ammal commumty, reduce the number of restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or aramal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
[1 [] [1 [~
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [ ]
[1 [] [x]
R:\STAFFRPT~27pA97.PC 3/25/98 klb 38
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCutnulatively
considerable" meax.- ,hat the incremen:tal effects of a
project are considerime when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects).
[1 [1 [] [~
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
[] [] [] [~
17. EARl ,il~R ANALYSES.
Initial Environmental Study by Debbie lYonoske dated August 12, 1991 for underlying and previously approved
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24086 covering the subject site.
SOURCES
1. City of Tnmecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. Geotechnical Investigation Report by Schaefer D xon Associates, dated June 7, 1989
5 Response to County Geologic Review Sheet by Schaefer Dixon Associates, dated August 15, 1989, and County
Geologic Report No. 627, dated August 3, 1989 by Steven Kupferman
6. Fault Location Investigation by EnGEN Corporation, dated August 29, 1997
7. Drainage Study by HLC Civil Engineering received September 23, 1997
8 Traffic Review by RKIK dated 1990 and RICIK update letter dated 10/3/97
9 Biological Sat, ey and Assessment by Paul Prmcipe& Associates dated January 1983
10 Biological Assessment by Howard Lee dated January 4, .~ 988
11 Paleontologica Survey & Assessment by Paul Langenwaher II dated January 1989
12. Archaeological Assessment by Christopher E. Drover, Ph.D., dated January, 28, 1989
13. Architectural Guideline and Design Manual for Westside Business Centres
14 Phase I Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Study by Principe and Associates dated March 5, 1998
R:\STAFFRIrI'X327PA97.PC 3/25/98 klb 39
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAFFRFFX327PA<-rT.PC 3/25/98 klb 40
Geologic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA97-0327
(Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657)
Erosion, chan~es in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public
Wor~.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill.
Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning
Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Departxnent.
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 Deparanent of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building
pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department.
R:\STAFFRPT~327PA97PC 3/25/98 Idb 41
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:
~e of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground
failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards.
Utilize coikstruction 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 properties, including drainage conveyances, have been incorporated
into site design and will be included on the grading plans.
Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Deparlraent of Public Works.
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality
(e.g. ,emperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity).
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall
be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) requirements.
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
R:\STAFFRPI~27PA97.PC 3/25/98
Transllortation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee in accordance with
Chapter 15.06 of the Temeeula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Department of Public Works.
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.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Department of Public Works, Planning Department and Building & Safety
Department.
BioloEjeal Resourcc~
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not
limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department
R:\STAFFPdrFX327PAeT/,PC 3/25/98 klb 43
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation ~i asure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substanfUal effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services
regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally increase the need
for fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the
maintenance of service provision.
Payment of Fire Mitigation Fees.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee in accordance with
Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Cede.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Department
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety DeparUnent and Temecula Valley Unified School District.
A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities,
including roads.
Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and
public facilities.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee in accordance with
Chapter 15.06 of the Temeeula Municipal Cede.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRFI~27pA97.PC 3/25/98 klb 44
AESTHETICS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
CULTURAl, RESOURCES
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
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 Observato~.
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 Deparlment.
Disturb paleontological resources.
The project shall comply with the Paleontological Survey and Assessment
plan of mitigation prepared by Paul E. Langenwalter II dated January 1989.
Whenever earthmoving peneU'ates into the Pauba Formation, full-time
monitoring shall occur. Fossils found during the development of the
properly should be reported immediately to the paleontological monitor.
The paleontologist retained for the project shall immediately evaluate the
fossils which have been discovered to determine if they are significant and,
if so, to develop a plan to collect and study them for the purpose of
mitigation.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Planning Department
Disturb archaeological resources.
Comply with the recommendations of the Eastern Information Center at the
University of California Riverside.
A qualified archaeologist shall complete Phase II testing of that portion of
the project site west of the toe of slope to evaluate resource significance and
propose mitigation measures for significant sites.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for that portion of the project site
west of the toe of slope.
Planning Department
R:\STAFFRPT~27pA97.PC 3/25/98 Idb 45
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Disturb archaeological resources.
Ensure that if any cultural resources are encountered as a result of grading,
them is identification, evaluation, treatment, sealing or capping, reburial or
appropriaie disposition, collection, mapping, or avoidance of significant
subsurface cultural resources in order to minimize the chances of future
disturbances.
A qualified archaeologist shall be present during all earth-moving activities
at the site to idenfif~ aM/or ascertain the significance of any subsurface
cultural resources or to aid in the avoidance of sensitive areas.
Prior to the issuance of a grading parrAt, a pre-grading conference shall be
held to clarify monitoring specifications with the grading contractor and the
City's Grading Inspector.
Planning Departmere
R:\STAFFRFI~327pA~7.PC 3/25/98 klb 46
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRF~327PA97.1'C 3/25/98 klb 47
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0327 (Tentative Parcel Map 28657, Amded No. 5)
EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATIO~
BP
BI
BP
/I
P '.) BP
SC
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0327 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657, Amended No. 5)
PLANNING COi%.IMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0327(Tentative Parcel Map No.28657, Amd No.5)
EXHIBIT D MAP
oLANNING COMMISSION DATE: April 1, 1998
In compliance with the Americana with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please c~ntect the office of the Community Development Department at (909) 694-
6400. Nctfficadon 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements
to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35,104 ADA Title
CALL TO ORDER:
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
April 1, 1998, 6:00 P.M.
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
Chairman Fahe¥
Re9o Next In Order #98-007
ROLL CALL:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Fahey, Guerriero, Miller, and Soltysiak
Slaven absent
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you
desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request
to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary
before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
ACTION:
APPROVED 4-0, SLAVEN ABSENT
m
Approval of March 2, 1998, Planning Commission Minutes
ACTION: APPROVED 4-0, SLAVEN ABSENT
Director's Hearing Update
ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Planning Application No. PA98-0064 {Development Plan)
J. G. Stouse Constructors
North side of Winchester Road (State Highway 79 North)
between Ynez Road and Margarita Road.
To construct and operate a 54,225 square foot master
planned commercial center, consisting of a 6,550 square
foot Mimi's Cafe restaurant, a 21,477 square foot Building
"A," a 19,600 square foot Building "B," and a 6,598 square
foot Building "C" all designed for retail shops, on five
parcels totaling 6.91 acres.
R:',Vv'IMBERVG\PLANCOIvI~IXAGENDAS%4-1-98 .V~PD 4/3/98 vgw 1
Environmental :ion:
Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Negative Declaration
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Approval
APPROVED 4-0, SLAVEN ABSENT
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA98-0029 (Conditional Use
Permit)
Dale Hackbarth
On the east side of Front Street, immediately southeast of
the intersection of Del Rio Road and Front Street on a 1.70
acre site.
The design, construction and operation of a 6,222 square
foot fast-food restaurant with a drive-through and
associated parking and landscaping.
Negative Declaration
Patty Anders
Annie Bostre-Le
Approval
APPROVED 4-0, SLAVEN ABSENT
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA98-0012 (Development Plan
Revision)
AEW/LBA Acquisition Co., LLC
27511 Ynez Road, in the Tower Plaza Shopping Center at
the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Ynez
Road.
The replacement of 15,625 square feet of retail space with
the construction of a 23,462 square foot Michaels retail
store and 23,500 square feet of retail space for a future
tenant, in two phases.
Categorical Exemption
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Approval
APPROVED 4-0, SLAVEN ABSENT
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA97-0327 (Tentative Parcel Map
No. 28657)
Bill Dendy, Westside City II LLC
Northwesterly of Remington and Diaz Road
The reparcelization of 58 acres of industrial property,
which is a portion of Tentative Parcel Map No. 24086,
into nine (9) lots, in two (2) phases.
Negative Declaration
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Approval
APPROVED 3-0, SLAVEN ABSENT/SOLTYSIAK ABSTAIN
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next Regular meeting:
April 15, 1998 6:00PM, City Council Chambers. 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
R:\WBVIB~P--VG\PLANCOitvlI'vI~AGB!q'DAS\4-1-98.V,~PD 4/3/98 vgw 2