HomeMy WebLinkAbout050698 PC AgendaCALL TO ORDER:
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
May 6, 1998, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
Chairman Fahey
Reso Next In Order #98-013
ROLL CALL:
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
I~efore Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA97-0447 {Development Plan) - Long
Machine Shop
Larry and Vicki Long
27450 Colt Court (south of the intersection of Colt Ct. and
Winchester Rd.)
To construct a 14,367 square foot industrial building on 1.32
acre site.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
John De Gange
John Pourkazemi
Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
N/A
City of Temecula
City-wide
Recommended changes to the existing Development Code
regulations of on-site storage of vehicles (to include recreational
vehicles) in residential zones
None
Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
Provide recommendations to the City Council regarding
modifications to the existing Development Code regulations
pertaining to the on-site storage of vehicles (to include
recreational vehicles) in residential zones
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting:
May 20, 1998, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California
ITEM #2
RECOMMENDATION:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 6,1998
Planning Application No. PA97-0447 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration with a Finding of
DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA97-
0447;
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0447; and
PROPOSED ZONING:
ADOPT Resolution No. 98- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA97-0447 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Larry and Vicki Long
same as applicant
The design and construction of a 14,367 square foot
office, warehouse and manufacturing building on a 1.32
acre parcel
27450 Colt Court (south of the intersection of Colt Court
and Winchester Road)
BP (Business Park)
LI (Light Industrial)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Not requested
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
LI (Light Industrial)
R:~STAF~7PA~7.1~C 4/29/98jd ].
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Industrial Building (Specialty Metals)
South: Vacant
East: Industrial Building (Optiforms inc.)
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area: 1.32 acres
Total Site Area: 57,500 square feet
Building Area: 14,367 square feet (22% of the site)
Landscape Area: 21,591 square feet (38% of the site)
Paved Area: 22,795 square feet (40% of the site)
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 0.25
Parking Required: 38 parking spaces
Parking Provided: 42 parking spaces
Building Height: Twenty-eight feet (28')
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. 97-0447 was submitted to the Planning Department on December 31,
1997. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on February 5, 1998. The
project was deemed complete on April 13, 1998.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the design and construction of a 14,367 square foot office, warehouse
and manufacturing building on a 1.32 acre (57,500 square foot) parcel on the southeast corner
of Colt Court and Winchester Road.
ANALYSIS
Site Design
The project will take access from Colt Court. Parking is located along the southern and eastern
portion of the building. An outdoor employee patio area will be located at the northeastern
corner of the building. The applicant has complied with the performance standards outlined in
the Development Code and the Design Guidelines (i.e, circulation, architectural design, site
planning and design and compatibility).
Architecture
The architecture is consistent with other buildings in the area. The building will be tilt-up
concrete, composed of varying patterns of rough exposed aggregate and sandblasted concrete.
Overall the building has been articulated with horizontal bands of glass and windows along the
north, east and west elevations, and with a series of horizontal reveals. Additional treatments
have been added for the main entrances along the northeast and northwest corners of the
building, including the use of recessed doorways, and the installation of a series of eight foot
high columnar features. The south elevation, though it appears to be relatively long, expansive
R:\.STAFFRlq'VI47PA97.1~3 4/29/98jd ~
and somewhat blank, is not visible from Winchester Road, will ultimately be screened by the
future development of the adjacent site to the south, and has a significant amount of
landscaping along it to help buffer it.
Landscaoing
Thirty eight percent (38 %) of the site is to be landscaped. The landscaping being provided is
consistent with the twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial)
zone. Included as part of the plan is a meandering decorative dry creek bed feature traversing
the west and northern portion of the site, and a water feature at the northeast corner of the
building. A 20 foot slope extending up from Winchester Road has been thoroughly planted and
should provide an aesthetically pleasing streetscape. The City's Landscape Architect has
reviewed the Landscape Plan and the applicant has addressed those comments on the
Landscape Plan.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). Existing zoning for
the site is LI (Light Industrial). Manufacturing/office/warehouse uses are permitted with the
approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The
project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although
the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not
considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in
the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated.
In addition, the ~site has previously been graded/disturbed, improvements have been installed
and as a consequence the project will not impact endangered, threatened or rare species, or the
site will not serve as a migration corridor. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Negative
Declaration for PA 97-0447 be adopted for this project and a Finding of DeMiminimus impact
be made.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code. The applicant
made an effort to design the project so that it is not a nondescript industrial box and to
conform with surrounding buildings, existing and proposed. In addition, the applicant has been
responsive and worked with Staff to resolve any issues and concerns raised.
FINDINGS
The proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code.
The site has a General Plan designation Business Park (BP) and zoning classification of
Light Industrial (LI). Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the goals
and policies contained within the General Ran and the development standards contained
in the Development Code. 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:~TAFFRPT~47PA97.PC 4/29/98jcl S~
The proposed use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent
uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed use will not adversely affect the
adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. Similar industrial uses either currently exist or
will be developed to the east, south and north of the site.
The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the project.
Staff has reviewed the project and has determined that the project is consistent with
the standards of the Development Code and the Design Guidelines.
The nature of the proposed 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 is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the
community. Compliance with these documents will assure this is achieved.
An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has been 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, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been
previously disturbed and rough graded in the past, and street improvements installed on
site. There are none of the standard indicators (obligate species) that might suggest
that there are wetlands on site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor. A
DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Initial Study - Blue Page 19
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 37
Exhibits - Blue Page 43
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
R:\STAFFRF~447PA~7 .I~C 4/29/98 jtl 4
:
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-
R:~STAFFP-J~i~4?PAg?.PC 4/29/98jd ~
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-4}447 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO
CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 14,367 SQUARE FOOT
OFFICE, LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND WAREHOUSE
BUIIXHNG, ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING
ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.32 ACRES LOCATED ON
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WINCHESTER ROAD
AND COLT COURT (274~0 COLT COURT) AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-310-070
WHEREAS, Larry and Vicki Long filed Planning Application No. PA97-0447 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Apph'cation No. PA97-0447 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0447
on May 6, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA97-0447;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA97-0447 makes the following findings; to wit:
1. The proposed land use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development
Code. The site has a General Plan designation Business Park (BP) and zoning classification of
Light Industrial (LI). 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 project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development
Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient
Landscaping provisions.
R:',STAFFRP'IM47pA97.PC 4/29198 jd 6
2. The proposed use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of
adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjacent
uses, buildings, or structures. Similar industrial uses either curren~y exist or will be developed
to the east, south and north of the site.
3. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the
project. Staff has reviewed the project and has determined that the project is consistent with the
standards of the Development Code and the Design Guidelines.
4 The nature of the proposed 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 is not detrimental to the
health, safety and general welfare of the community. Compliance with these documents will
assure this is achieved.
5. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has been 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.
6. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species
or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been
previously disturbed and rough graded in the past, and street improvements installed on site.
There are none of the standard indicators (obligate species) that might suggest that there are
wetlands on site. The site does not serve as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding
can be made for this project.
Section 3. F. nvironmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA97-0447 to construct and operate a 14,367 square foot office,
warehouse and manufacturing building on a 1.32 acre parcel located on at the southeast comer
of Winchester Road and Colt Court (27450 Colt Court) and known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 909-
310-070 subject to Exhibit "A", attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and
made a part hereof.
R:'~STAFF~7pA97.PC 4/29/98jd 7
Section '5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 1998.
Marcia Slaven, Acting Chair
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 6th day of May,
1998 by the following vote of the Commission:
A YES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:~STAFFRP'IM47PA97.pC 4129198jd 8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~,STAF~RPT~447PAg'7.I~C 4/29/98 j~ ~
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0447 (Devdopment Plan)
Project Description: The design and construction of a 14,367 square foot office,
warehouse and manufacturing building on a 1.32 acre parcel
Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-310-070
Approval Date: May 6, 1998
Expiration Date: May 6, 2000
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight {48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section
21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason
of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The 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:\STAI~1~t~"~47PA97.PC 4/29/98 jd
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 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 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.
Concrete (walls)
Concrete (walls) - Paint Accent
Concrete (walls)
Metal (roll-up doors)
Mullions
Exterior Glass
Colors
Sandblasted Concrete
Frazee CW037W (White Filigree)
Exposed Concrete Aggregate (Tan)
Frazee CWO37W (White Filigree)
Anodized metal
(Black Graylite)
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.
If after the University of California Riverside (UCR) Eastern Information Center has
conducted a review of the project and it has been determined to be necessary, the
applicant shall be required to provide a qualified paleontologist/archaeologist for
consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential
paleontological/ archaeological impacts. A meeting between the
R:\STAFFRPT~47PA97.PC 4/29/98 jd 1 ]
paleontologist/archaeologist, Community Development Department - Planning Division
staff, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the
excavation shall be arranged. The paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall
have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow
recovery of fossils. If it is determined by UCR Eastern Information Center that this is
not necessary or that no further studies are required, nothing additional shall be
required.
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.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
14.
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.
15.
Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
16.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
17. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be F-1/B.
18. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
19.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,
1994)
20. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
R:~STAFF~7pA97.PC 4/29/98jd ]~
21. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
22. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
23. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systems.
24. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the
1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
25. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
26. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
27. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
28. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss
manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal.
29. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
30. 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
31.
A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work
and improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
32.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior
to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
33.
An Encroachment 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.
R:\STAFFRPT~447pA97.pC 4/29/98 jd ]3
:
34.
All improvement plans and grading 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
35.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
36.
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.
37.
A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Director of 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.
38.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
39.
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.
40.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, prior to
issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the
following agencies:
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
41.
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.
42.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
43.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-
site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
R:\STAFFRFI"447PA~7.1~C 4/29/98jd
44.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's
check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area
drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already
been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
45.
Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of 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.
c. 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 concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
46.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil
Engineer shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
47.
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.
48.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western
Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
49.
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
50.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRFIM47PA97.PC 4/29/98jd 15
51.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the
Department of Public Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
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, use, the
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 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.
The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (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) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and
adjacent 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 a 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.
As required by the Uniform Fire Code, when any portion of the building(s) is in excess
of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, on site fire hydrants are required,
For this project on site fire hydrants are required. (UFC 903.2)
56.
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)
57.
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)
58.
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)
59.
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)
R:',STAFFRPTM47PA97.PC 4/29/98jd 16
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65,
66.
67.
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 (8)
inches for suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses
shall post the suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15)
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)
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid
entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4)
R:~STAFFP-PT~4?PA97.l~C 4129/98 jd ].7
OTHER AGENCIES
68.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District transmittal dated February 19, 1998, a
copy of which is attached.
69.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated February 2, 1998,
a copy of which is attached.
R:\STAFF~7PA97 .~C 4/29/98 jd ]- 8
DAVID P. ZAPPE
Gcncral M~ager-ChicfEnginccr
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Plannin Department
43200 ~usiness Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Atte.tion: 3"OH/V }E
1995 MARKET STFREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
7829.1
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: PA q 7 - O q q 7
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
draina e facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District
Area ~ainage 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 checked comments do not in any wa
constitute or imply District approval or 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 faclhtles on written request
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standarYs and District plan check and inspection will be
required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
or money order only to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance of tjuild~ng or grading permits
whichever comes first. Fees to be pad should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Poliutant 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 City
until the
has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergen~;y-Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain then the City should
require ~{~e applicant to rovide all studies, calculations plans and other information reqGired to meet FEMA
requirements, and should ~rther 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 licant 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 En ineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating
the pro ect is exempt from these requirements. A g~lean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification may be
requ red from the local Ca fornia Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit.
1998
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: Z-- lq-q,5
TO:
FROM
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: January 30, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: John De Gange
(~ARENCE HARRISON, Environmental Health Specialist III
PLOT PLAN NO. PA97-0447
Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA97-0447 and has no
objections.
PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ISSUANCE:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts.
b)
If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete
sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule,
a finish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2.
c) If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Department of
Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (694-5022) will be
required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance# 615.3.
· Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2).
· Waste reduction management.
CH:dr
(909) 285-8980
cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Branch
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRFIM47pA97.PC 4/29/98 jd 19
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
Project Tifie:
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Contact Person end Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name end Address:
General Hen Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
Planning Application No. PA97-0447 (Development Hen)
- Long Machine Shop (Larry and Vicki Long)
City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
CA 92590
John De Gange, Project Planner (909) 694-6400
27450 Colt Court (south of the intersection of Colt Ct. And
Winchester Road)
Larry and Vicki Long, 12395 Doherty, Riverside, CA
92503
BP (Business Park)
LI (Light Industrial)
The design and construction of a 14,367 square foot
industrial building, associated parking, lendscaping and
improvaments on a 1.329 acre site.
The project is located in a area that has been previously
graded, street improvements, water and sewer are within
vicimty of the project. Lend is vacant to the south, west,
and east with existing industrial braidings to the north.
Rivehide County Fire Department, Riverside County
Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern
Municipal Water D'tstrict, Rancho California Water
District, Southern California Gas Compeny, Southem
California Edison Compeny, General Telephone Compeny,
end Riverside Transit Agency.
R:~TAFFRFIM47PA97.PC 4/29/98jd
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would bc potentially affected by this project, revolving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality IX] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this imtial evaluation:
I fred that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will bc prepared.
Signature
Printed Name: John De Gange
Date: April 16, 1998
For: The City of Temecula
R:~STAFFKPT~47PA97.PC 4/29/98jd 21
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a.Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c,Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(Source l, Figure 2-1, Pagc 2-17)
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(Some 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Dismptordividethephysicalarrangomentofanestablished
community (including low-income or minority community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects?
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either direc~y or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the p~oposal ~esult
in or expose people to potential hnpaets involving?
a. Fault rapture? (Source 2, Page 66, Figure 6)
b. Seisnuc ground shaking?
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, gredthg or ffil?
g. Subsidence of the land?
h. Expansive soils?
I. Unique geologic or physical features?
Po~tttially
Significant
Units
Mitigauo~
[l
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
Ix]
[1
[l
[]
[×]
[1
Significant
[1
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
Ix]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
NO
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[]
[x]
[1
[]
[x]
[x]
[1
[1
[]
[xj
R:',STAFFRFrxA47PA97.PC 4/29/98jd 22
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Pot~tially
Sigaificam
Potentially Unless
Signillctnt Mitigation
Impact Incorporated
No
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a- Changes in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the
rate and mount of surface runoff?
b. Exposureofpeoplcorpropertytowaterrclatedhazards
such as flooding?
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of suffac~
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d. Changes in the mount of surface water in any water
body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g. Altered direction or rate of~ow of groundwater7
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b. Expose sensitive reeeptors to pollutants?
c, Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause
any change in climate7
d, Create objectionable odors?
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)?
[1 Ix] [] [1
[] [] IX] []
[1 7] [] []
[] [] ~] []
[2 [] [xl [1
[1 [] ~] []
[] [] Ix] []
[1 [] Ix] []
[] [] [] [~
[] [] [1 [~
[] [1 [] Ix]
[] [] [1 [~
[] [1 [x] [1
[] [] ~] []
[] [] [1 [~
R:\STAFFRFIM47PA97.PC 4/29/98jd 23
ISSUES AND SLrPPORTINO INFORMATION SOURCES
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses7
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e. H~ards or barriers for pedestrians or bieyclists?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g Rail, waterborne or air t~affic impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result In impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(Ineluffmg but not limited to plants, fish, insects, smmals
and birds)7
b. Locally design~ed species (e.g. heritage tges)?
c. Locally desig=ated natural eommumties (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d. Weftand habitat (e.g. marsh, tipman and vernal pool)?
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration coredors7
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plens?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and mefficiant
manner7
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?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticicles,
chemical or radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
Potentlilly
signme~t
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
1]
[1
[]
Unlm
Mih~i,m
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
[l
[1
[]
[1
[1
[1
ix]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[l
[]
[1
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
NO
[x]
Ix]
[]
[xq
Ix]
Ix]
[1
[x]
[x]
[x]
R:\STAFFRFIM47PA97 .PC 4/29/98 jd 24
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFOIL~IATION SOUECES
d. Exposure of people to existing sottrees of potential health
hazards7
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush,
grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an elfeft
upon~ or result In · n~d for new or altered Soyeminent
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection7
b. Police protection7
c. Schools?
d. Maintenanee ofpublicfacilities, mcludingroads?
e. Other governmental services?
12. IJTILrrlE$ ~ SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result In a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
e. Lceal or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste disposal7
g. Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Aftfeet a seeme vista or seeme highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
Significant
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
po~atially
Significant
Unless
Mitigatmn
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
Signif. cant
[]
[]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[1
[]
No
Ix]
[x']
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[xq
[x]
[]
[xl
[x]
[x]
[1
R:XSTAFF~7pA97.PC 4/29/98jd 25
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Imp~t
Pc~f, ially
Si~nifictnt
Unless
Miti~Xion
NO
c. Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
c. Affect historical resource,~?
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values7
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Incresse the demend for neighborhood or ~gional parks or
other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the pwject have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife stw~ies, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or arereal cornmumty, reduce the number of res~ct
the range of a rare or endangered plant or enjmal or eliminate
irnportsnt examples of the major periods of California history
or prehlstory?
b. Does the project tmve the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulalively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past pwjects, the effects dother 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 mdirec~y?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
None.
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[1
[]
[1
[l
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[l
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
[x]
Ix]
[1
[1
Ix]
[x]
Ix]
R:~TAFFRFIM47pA97.PC 4/29/~8.jd 26
SOURCES
1. City of Tem~cula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CERA Air Quality Handbook.
4. Architectural Guideline and Design Manual for Westside Business Center
R:~STAFFRP'IM47pA97.PC 4/29/98 jd 27
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
I and Use and Planning
1.a,b,c. No Impact - The project will not conflict with the general plan designation or zoning, applicable
environmenial plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project, nor be
incompatible with existing land USeS in the vicinity. The project is consistent with the City's General
Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park) and the zoning of LI (Light Indusu'ial). Impacts
from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of
the analysis contained in the FIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency.
Miligation measures approv~d with the/at( 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
an~cipaled that they will make the appropriale cornmenu 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 lhe area. There will be liralied, if any environmental effects on environmental plans
or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Similar induswial/warehouse/office
buildings have already been constructed in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result
of this project.
1.d.
No Impact - The project site is vacant and has been graded for some time. There is currently no
agricultural activity on site and the site has not been used for agricultural purposes within the recent
past.
No Impact - The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including low-income or minority community). The project is an
induslrial/office/warehouse use in an area surrounded by land that is eurren~y planned to be
developed with similar uses. There is no established residential community (including low-income
or minority community) at this site. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of n~ds project.
Population and HoH~ing
No Impact - The project will not cnmulatively exceed official regional or local population projections.
The project is an industrial/office/warehouse use which is consistent with the City's General Plan
Land Use Designation of Business Park. Since the project is consistent with the City' s General Plan,
and is within the floor area ratio range for Business Park identified in the General Plan, it will not be
a significant conlributor te population grow~ which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
2.b.
No Impact - 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 wia'dn Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not
induce substsntial growlh in the area. No significant effects arc anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact - 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 ads project.
R:\STAFFRPT~7PA97.PC 4/29/9Rid 28
Geologic Problems
c,g,h.
No Impact - The project will potentially have a less than significant impact on people involving
seismic ground shaking; however, there may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground
failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California,
an area which is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through
building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary
soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and
recommendations conteined 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 Found shaking, seismic ground
failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no
significant effects are anticipated as a restfit of this project.
3.d.
No Imlma - The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic baT~rd. The project
is not located in an area where any of these hazards cotrid occur. No significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
3.e.
No Impact - The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental
Impact for the City of Temecala 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.
No Impact - The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography,
Fading or fill The site has been previously Faded and the project does not propose significant
grading beyond that which has already occurred. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on
and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and the project may result in
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition
of approval for the project. In the long-run, hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent
erosion control for the project. Since the amount of Fading will be the minimum necessary for the
realization of the project, modification to topography and Found surface relief features will not be
considered significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, Fading or fill will be
mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation
measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.i.
No Impact - 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.
No Impact - 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 groua:l will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape
and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be
mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and
adequately handle runoff which is created. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.b.
No Impact - The project will have a less than significant impact on people or property to water
related ba,ards such as flooding because the project site is located outside of the 100 year floodway.
R:\STAFFRPTM47PA97.PC 4/29/98jd 29
However; the project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula
General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing
emergency respome systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate service
provision as the City develops. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.c.
No Impact - The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters
and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a Fading permit for the project, the
developor will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water P, nsources Con~ol Board. No grading
shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intern has been filed or the project is shown to be
exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a
level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.d,e.
No Impat't - 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.
Additionel surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered
impervious by consu'ue~on of building, accompanying hardscapo and driveways. Due to the limited
scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage will not considered significant. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.f-h.
No Impaa - The project will have a less lhan significant change in the quantity and quality of ground
waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations or through substantial loss of Foundwater 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 considere<t 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.
No Impact - 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 additionel water demands." Water service currently
exists in the mediate 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.
No Impact - The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projeaed air quality violation. The project (14,367 square feet of indus~al/otYico/warehouse at build
out) is below the threshold for a potentially significant air quality impact (276,000 square feet)
established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Page 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast
Air Quality Management CERA Air Quality Handbook). No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
5.b.
No Impact - The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant
pollulants in proximity to the project. No significant inlpacts am anticipated as a result of this project.
5.c.
No Impact - The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change
in climate. The limiled scale of the project precludes it from creating any signi~cam impacts on the
environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~TAFFRPT~47PA97.PC 4/29/98jd 30
5.d. No Impact - The project will create objecfional odors during the construction phase of the project.
These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant.
TranSportation/Circulation
6.a.
No Impact - While the project may result in an incremental increase in traffic congestion it will result
in a less ~ significant increase in vehicle trips. h is anticipated that this project will conu-ibute less
than a le~s than significant increase in existing volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour
time frames to the intersections of Winchester Road and Diaz Road according to standard trip
calculation methodologies. The proposed development is in compliance with the land use and
development standards of this zone which was analyzed in the EIR for the General Plan. Therefore
it is determined ltmt the proposed development will not adversely affect the LOS for this area, but was
included in the EIR analysis. The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and
public facility foes as conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are
performed, no impacts are anticipated us a result of this project.
6.b.
No Impact - 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.
No Impact - The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses.
The project is a industrial/office/warehouse use in an area with existing and planned similar uses. The
project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does
not provide direct access to nearby uses; therefore, it will not impact access to nearby uses. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.d.
No Impact - The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. Off-site parking will not be
impacted. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No.Impact - The project will not result in a less than significant impact from hazards or harriers for
pedestrians or bieyclists. 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.
No Impact - The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation. The project was transmitled to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and based upon
lheir response to similar projects in the area, it is not anticipated the project will impact RTA facilities
or services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.g.
No Impact - The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists
currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
Biological Resources
No Impact - 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. Currentiy, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened
or endangered species of plains, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no
indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of
species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site
is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be
R:~STAFFRPTxA47PA97,PC 4/29/98jd 31
required to mitigate ~he effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
7.b.
No Impaa - 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 ~his project is not loca~l in Old Town, and since there are no locally
designated species on site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact - The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural conunifies.
Reference response 7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.d.
No Impset - The pmjext will not result in an impact to weftand habitat. There is no wetland habitat
on-site or within proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
No Imlma - 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.
Enerll~ and Mineral Resonrces
No Impact - The project will not impact and/or conflict wi~h 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.
No Impact - 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) {consiruction 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.
No Impact - 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,
No Impact -i!iThe Deparunent of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and the applicant
must receive the'ff clearance prior to any phn check submiUal. This applies to storage and use of
bnT~rdous materials. No significant impacts are anlicipated as a result of this project.
9.b.
No Impact - 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 anticipawxi as a result
of this project.
9.c+
No Imll~ct - The project will not result in the creation of any health b37ard or potential health hazard.
The project will be reviewed for complhnce with all applicable health hws during the plan check
R:\STAFFRFIM47PA97.PC 4/29/98jd 32
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.
No hopact - The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No
health ha,ards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
No Impact - The project will not result in an increase to fire haTard in an area with ~ammable brush,
grass, or trees. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse development in an area of existing and
future similar uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Noise
No hopact - The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The
site is curren~y vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels
during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term
noise generated by this project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. No
significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the shoo or long-term.
lO.b.
No Impact The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the
development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise
in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing
damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore
will not be considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Public Services
ll.a,b.
No hopact - The project will have a tess than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or
altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase lhe need for fire and police
pro~eetion; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintemnce of service provision from these
entities. No significant impacts are antieipatecl as a result of this project.
ll.c.
No Impact - 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.
No Impact - The project will have a less lhan significant impact for the maintenance of public
facilities, including roads. Funding for malnlenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which
is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future
needs for maintenance of reads 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. No Impact - The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT~447PA97.PC 4F29/98jd 33
Utilities and Service System~
12.a.
No Impact - The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or subslantial
alteratiom 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.
No Impact - The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alteratiom to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of litis project.
12.c.
No Impact - 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.
No Impact - The project will not result in a need for new syslems 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 signi~cam 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.
No Impact - The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or
subslantial 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 lhe existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.f.
No Impact - The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid
wasle 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.
No Impact - 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.a.
No Impact - The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located
in a area where there is a scenic vim. Fur~er, the City does not have any designated scenic
highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b.
No Impact - The project may have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect unless mitigation
measures are incorporated into the project design. The project is a industrial/office/warehouse use
in an area of existing and proposed similar uses. The building is consistent with the quality of design
for the buildings in the area and additional architectural enhancements included in the bnilding's
design in order to mitigate any visual impacts. In addition, proposed landscaping will provide
additional aesthetic enhancement. Potential aesthetic impacts have been mitigated through additional
landscaping as well as additional building artiafiation. The addition of these elements into the project
R:~STAFF~7PA97.PC 4/29/98 jd 34
design, mitigate ~hese potentially significant impacts reducing them to a level of less than significant.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.c.
No Impact - The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project
will preduce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources.
All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be
conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
14.a-c.
No Impact - The project will not have an impact on paleontological, archaeological or historical
rescx~ces. The site has been disturbed from prior grading activity and any impacts to these resources
would have been mitigated during the Fading process. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
14.d.
No Impact - The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ellrole cultural values. Reference response 14.a,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
14.e.
No Impact - The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
15.a,b. No Impact - The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant
numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an
incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing reerealional resources
or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPTX447PA97.PC 4/29/98 jd 35
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAFFP, PTX447PA97 .PC 4r29/98 jd 36
G~ologic Probl~m~
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Speci~e Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA97-0447
(Development Plan, Long Machine Shop)
Expose people to impacts from seismic grotmA shaking.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a regislered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion con~ol plans for approval by the Department of Public
Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
R:XSTA~TPA97 .PC 4/29198 jd 37
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development
Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning
Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Depathnent.
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 Deparunent of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department.
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic
ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake
hazards.
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform
Building Code.
Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department
R:XSTAFFRPTxA47PA97.PC 4/29/98 jd 38
:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patients
and the rate and amount of surface ranoff.
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 die 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 mrbidity).
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.
DeparUnent of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
TranSportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Paymere of Development Impact Fees which contribute to road
improvements and traffic signal installations.
Pay fees as computed by the Building Departmere.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Deparhaent of Public Works.
R:\STAFFRPT~447pA97.FC 4/29/98jd 39
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Paymere of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee.
Pay pro-ran share for traffic impacts (to be determined by the Director of
Public Works.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
DeparUnent of Public Works.
Biologiesd Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Public Services
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 Deparlment
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental
services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally
increase the need for fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair
share to the maintenance of service provision.
Payment of Developmere Impact Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Riverside County Fire Deparunem.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Depafuuent
R:\STAFF~TpA97.PC 4/29/98 jd 40
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Miligation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
AF..~THETICS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
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 Temecuia Valley Unified School
District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities,
including roads.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic
impacts, and public facilities.
Pay fees computed by the Building Department.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Department of Public Works.
A potentially significant negative aesthetic effect.
Add landscaping throughout the project to screen views of the building.
Add further articulation to the bullcling which will pwvide aesthetic
enhancement to the building from Winchester Road and areas north and
east of the site.
Submit building construction plans which are consistent with the approved
site plan, submit elevations which are consistent with the approved
elevations and submit landscape plans which are consistent with the
approved site plan for review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Planning Department and Building and Safety Department.
R:XSTAFFRPTX447PA97.PC 4/'29/98jd 41
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 consistera with Ordinance No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Departmere for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
R:~STAFFRFlM47PA97.PC 4/29/98 jd 42
ATTACHMENT N0.4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFP, FI~447pA97 .PC: 4/29198 jd 43
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0'?.7 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 6, 1998
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAI~FRF'j"~47PA97.1~C 4/28/98 jd
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
RH
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0447 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - May 6, 1998
R:\STAFFRFIM47PA97.1~C 4/28/98jd
ITEM #3
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
May 6, 1998
On-Site Storage of Vehicles in Residential Zones
Prepared by: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Depa~hnent recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Receive the Staff Report and Provide Recommendations to the City Council
Regarding Modifications to the Existing Development Code Regulations
Pertaining to the On-Site Storage of Vehicles (to Include Recreational
Vehicles) in Residential Zones
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission was directed by the City Council, at the joint City Council/Planning
Commission Workshop on April 21, 1998, to consider the information end direction provided to them
at that meeting and provide a recommendation (or recommendations) to the City Council regarding
an Ordinance regulating the on-site storage of vehicles in residential zones. Staff has reviewed the
comments and suggestions from that meeting and has summarized the issues below.
ANALYSIS
· · Issue: Current Development Code provisions allow for temporary on-site storage for a period
not to exceed five (5) consecutive days·
Option: Reduce the amount of time to two (2) days.
Option: Allow these vehicles to be temporarily stored for two days utilizing a permit process.
R:~STAFFRP~VIh~C-R2.PCI 4/29/98 mf 1
· Issue: The definition of"vehicle" in the Developmere Code includes automobiles.
Option: Remove automobiles and similar vehicles with a lesser "mass" which could be parked
on the driveway.
Issue: Requiting those who have adequate area in their side or rear yards for storing their
vehicle to store their vehicle there.
Option: Those who have adequate space be given a time period to meet this storage
requirement. For those who did not have adequate space on the side or rear of the house, the
option of a permit system was discussed. The permit could be issued for the particular
vehicle/house and would require notifying the adjacent residents (i.e., within 300'). In
addition, the vehicle would not be allowed to protrude into the right-of-way.
· Issue: Storage of vehicles in areas where Home Owner's Associations (HOA's) do not exist.
Option: Limited regulation ofnon-HOA areas with a grace or transition period prior to being
these areas being subject to any new regulations.
In addition, comments were received fi'om residents of large-lot residential development (½ acre and
larger) in terms of screening and on-site parking. It is their opinion that they should be able to have
visitors on-site and that the screening required under the Development Code is more designed for
tract houses. Staff concurs with this opinion and recommends the Commission consider language to
address this issue.
Staff will take the direction provided by the Commission and develop a draf~ ordinance for the
Planning Commission and City Council's consideration.
Attachments:
1. Correspondence received - Blue Page 3
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
R:~TAFFRP~FuHIC-RZ.FCi 4/29/93mf 3
27 APRIL 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA
CITY/COUNCIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ATTN: MATTHEW R. FAGAN
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92589-9033
REGARDING:
MEETINGS CONCERNING ORDINANCES FOR RV PARKING AND
LOT USE BY PROPERTY OWNERS
SCHEDULED MEETINGS: 28 APRIL AND 6 MAY 1998
IN THE ABOVE SCHEDULED MEETINGS, IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE
ATTENTION OF THOSE LIVING IN TEMECULA, THAT PROPERTY RIGHTS
ARE ABOUT TO BE VIOLATED BY CHANGES IN THE EXISTING ORDINANCES
LIMITING USE OF THE PROPERTY BY OWNERS AND PARKING OF
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND OTHER USES WITHIN THE CONFINES OF
THE OWNED PROPERTY.
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE BEING CHANGED BY THOSE
BIASED AGAINST RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, FORCING
THEM TO PAY FOR STORAGE OF THEIR VEHICLES WHEN NOT IN USE.
THOSE OF US WHO RESIDE ON ACREAGE TYPE PROPERTIES ORIGINALLY
PURCHASED THIS TYPE OF LOT TO INSURE THE CAPABILITY OF HAVING
ALL VEHICLES STORED ON SITE. THESE CHANGES WILL NOT ALLOW THIS
TO CONTINUE.
HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY SINCE 1981, LONG BEFORE
TEMECULA BECAME A CITY, IT IS APPARENT THAT MY RIGHTS AS A
PROPERTY OWNER WILL BE VIOLATED BY THESE CHANGES. THE ORDINANCE
THAT WAS PASSED IN 1995 ALSO VIOLATES PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHTS.
MORE TIME AND STUDY SHOULD BE DONE PRIOR TO ADOPTING CHANGES,
AND THOSE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE WHO VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE
RECREATIONAL VEHIOLE OWNERSHIP AND PARKING ON PRIVATE LOTS MIGHT
WISH TO TALK WITH THE MORE THAN 5000 OWNERS OF RVS WHO CURRENTLY
RESIDE IN TEMEOULA,
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALL THESE PEOPLE NOTIFIED
CHAN ES BY OTHER THAN JUST NEWSPAPER ARTICLES,
y_McCo RMC 2}
39450 PALA VISTA DRIVE
TEMECULA, CA 92589-0325
OF THE PROPOSED
Dr. and Mrs. Charles E. Isaac
41797 Corte Camara
Temecula, CA 92592
April 24, 1998
1998
Linda L. Fahey, Chairperson
Planning Commission
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Chairperson Fahey:
It has come to our attention that Recreational Vehicles parking regulations are under discussion for
changes. We wish to voice our concern.
We live in the planned community of Vintage Hills. We live on a 10 house cul-de-sac. We pay for
storage of our 22 ft travel trailer at a facility in Menifee. We do not have the option of en-site parking
since it is prohibited by our Home Owners Association.
We believe we present no public safety hazard and do not impact the value of our neighbor's property
value when we occasionally park our rig on the street. It takes on average one hour driving time each way
to pick up and return our trailer to storage. Most of our usage is on weekend trips. We load Friday
evenings and leave early Saturaday mornings. We usually return home late Sunday to unload, and then
return the trailer to storage on Monday. We don't take that many trips normally during the fall and winter,
but summer is just around the corner. We look forward to being able to take some get away weakends
We respectfully request that the City NOT adopt an ordiance that would prohibit our abilty to park
overnight in ~'ont of our own house for up to 72 hours. If we should lose this parking priviledge; it
would VIRTUALLY DENY ACCESS to use our own trailer!!!
We deeply appreciate your immediate cansideration on this mailer. Please feel flee to call us if you wish
further information. We both work days, but usually someone is home by 4:30 p.m. Our home telephone
number is 909-699-3923.
Thank you.
Charles E. Isaac, DDS