HomeMy WebLinkAbout090298 PC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans v/~ DieabilNes Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please conted the
office of the Community Development Depadrnent at (909) 694,6400. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeUng will eeabb the City to
make reasonebb arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35,104 ADA Title II]
CALL TO ORDER:
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
September 2, 1998, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92390
Chairman Slaven
Reso Next In Order #98-0
ROLL CALL:
Guerriero, Naggar, Slaven, Soltysiak and Webster
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on
items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you
desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request
to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address,
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning
Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for
individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
CBse No.:
Applicant:
LocatioFl:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA98-0270 (Development Plan
Carl Raedeker, Creative Components
On the south side of Winchester Road, approximately
1,200 feet southwest of the intersection of Diaz and
Winchester Road
The design and construction a 16, 656 square foot
office/manufacturing/warehouse building with associated
parking and landscaping on a one acre parcel.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
Approval
3. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA95-0079 (Tentative Parcel Map
No. 28257)
William and Michael Peruchetti
South side of Pauba Road, west of Showalter Road, east
of La Primavera Street, north of Estero Street
To subdivide 2.85 acres into four (4) residential parcels
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Denial
R:\WIMBERVG\PLANCOMMXAGENDASX9-2-98 8/26/98 vgw
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting:
September 16, 1998, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
2
R:XWIMBERVG\PLANCOMM~,GENDAS~9-2-98 8/26/98 vgw
701-16
ITEM #2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 2, 1998
Planning Application No. PA98-0270 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
APPLICATIONINFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA98-0270;
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA98-0270; and
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
ADOPT Resolution No. 98- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA98-0270 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Creative Components/Carl Raedeker
Dekkon Development
The design, construction and operation of a one-story 16,656
sq. ~. office, warehouse and manufacturing building on a one
(1) acre site.
Approximately 1100 feet southwest of the intersection of Diaz
Road and Winchester Road.
LI (Light Industrial)
North: LI (Light Industrial)
South: LI (Light Industrial)
East: LI (Light Industrial)
West: LI (Light Industrial)
BP (Business Park)
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Existing IndustrialANarehouse/Office Building
Existing IndustrialANarehouse/Office Buildings
Vacant
Industrial/office building under construction.
Further west is existing industrial/warehouse
buildings.
PROJECTSTATISTICS
Total Area: 1 acre (net); I acre (gross)
Total Area:
Total Site Area:
Building Area:
Landscape Area:
Paved Area:
43,561 square feet
16,656 square feet
9,265 square feet
17,639 square feet
(1 acre)
39%
21%
40%
Parking Required:
Office=1,440 sq. ~.:
Manufacturing=5,720 sq.ft.:
Warehousincl= 9,496 sol. ft.:
Total=16,656 sq. ft.:
5 Vehicles
14 Vehicles
9 Vehicles
28 Vehicles, 2 Bicycles, 2Motorcycles
Parking Provided:
Standard Spaces: 17
Compact Spaces: 8
Bicycles 8
Motorcvcles 2
25
2'
Total Parking Provided: 27
*Credit for two vehicle parking spaces by providing 6
additional bicycle spaces.
Building Height: Thirty (30') feet
BACKGROUND
A pre-application meeting was held on May 21, 1998. A formal application submittal was submitted
on June 18, 1998. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on July 15, 1998,
with staff providing written comments on July 23, 1998. The project was deemed complete on
August 10, 1998.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the design, construction and operation of an one-story office, 16,656 sq.
ft. office, warehouse and manufacturing building on an one (1) acre site with associated
improvements, such as hardscape, parking, landscaping and drive aisles. Landscape
improvements include: parking lot, planter areas, and streetscape. The applicant is also requesting
a minor exception permit to allow the parking to be reduced by two (2) parking spaces. The
applicant proposes to expand and relocate his business, Creative Components, from its existing
location on Business Park Drive to the Winchester Business Park.
ANALYSIS
Site Desicln
The project is sited on a rectangular parcel with the building located on the east property line. The
loading space is located on the west side of the building, parking is dispersed on the west and
south sides. A wood trellis shade structure is provided at the southeast corner of the lot for an
employee outdoor lunch area. The site design is compatible with existing development in the area.
Access, Traffic and Circulation
The project takes access from one driveway off of Winchester Road. There is parking and
vehicular circulation on the west and south sides of the building. The applicant is requesting a
minor exception permit to the parking requirements to allow a reduction to the minimum parking
requirements by two (2) parking spaces. The Development Code requires a minimum of 29 parking
spaces for this size of building given the various square footages of office, manufacturing and
warehouse uses. The project is provided 17 standard spaces, 8 compact spaces and 6 extra
bicycle spaces. Pursuant to the Development Code Section 17.24.040 F(5), bicycle spaces can
be counted as fulfilling the off-street parking requirements at the rate of three bicycle spaces for
one vehicle space up to six bicycle parking spaces (in addition to the minimum bicycle space
requirements). The applicant is proposing six extra bicycle spaces which allow a credit of 2 vehicle
parking spaces.
The building is specifically being built to accommodate the applicanrs furniture manufacturing
business that has minimal need for on-site customer parking. The applicant has stated that the
majority of his business is manufacturing and warehouse which requires a large amount of floor
space. In addition, the applicant stated that he has 15 employees, two of which ride bicycles to
work and some employees carpool. The applicant feels that his business would not utilize the 25
parking spaces being provided even as the business expands. Staff communicated to the owner
and his representatives that if his business were to vacate the building any future business would
be restricted to a use that would require no more than 27 parking spaces (unless a minor exception
permit for a parking reduction was reviewed and granted).
Staff feels that the minor exception permit to allow a reduction of two parking spaces should be
granted given the parking needs for the applicant's business, and the fact that the twenty seven
parking spaces being provided could accommodate another business which requires a large
amount of warehouse space.
Architecture
The building will be tilt-up concrete with smooth, painted panels with painted accent colors. The
applicant proposes to highlight the office entry along Winchester Road with a projected, covered
entry with extensive blue glazing, accent painting and heavy landscaping. The entry also contains
a curved column at the northwest comer of the entry that adds visual interest. Staff has worked
very closely with the applicant and the architect to ensure a quality design while balancing the
owner's operational needs.
To add visual interest and articulation to the elevations, the architect has provided varying roof
heights, building recessions on the west and north elevations, a covered entry on the west
elevation, the heavy use of painted reveals, and various paint colors.
Because the east elevation is on the property line, there will be no landscaping to help soften this
elevation which is visible from Winchester Road. Therefore, the architect continued the design and
articulation to this elevation with varying roof heights, heavy reveals and accent painting.
There is a wrought iron security fence proposed from the landscape planter on the west property
line and the loading area for security reason. The applicant is showing a proposed sign envelope
on the north elevation, but no precise signage is being approved with this building. As proposed,
the structure is compatible with the existing buildings in the area in terms of colors, materials,
height, bulk and mass.
Landscapinq
Twenty-one percent (21%) of the site has been landscaped. The landscaping provided meets the
twenty percent minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial) zone and has been
distributed very effectively throughout the site, There is an approximately 46' x 53' landscaped area
with ten tress at the northeast corner of the site which helps to define the main entry and soften the
front elevation. There is also a 15' landscape planter area along the entire south property line and
a seven (7) foot planter along the entire western property line. These planters will soften the west
elevation and provide a buffer between the existing buildings to the south. Landscape fingers are
proposed on the west and south sides to help break-up the parking lot paving.
The proposed street tree (London Plane) is consistent with the existing street tress in the
surrounding area, Moreover, trees have been provided along the western property line to help
soften the west elevation, The Development Code allows a zero side yard setback in the industrial
zone; therefore no landscaping is proposed on the east elevation. The City's Landscape Architect
has reviewed the landscape plan and the applicant has addressed comments on the plan.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). Existing zoning for the
site is LI (Light Industrial). Manufacturing/office/warehouse uses are permitted with the approval
of a development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project as
proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan.
R\STAFFRPT~270PA98PC DOC
4
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study has been prepared forthis 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.
SUMMARWCONCLUSIONS
The project is the design and construction of a 16,656 square foot one-story,
warehouse/industrial/manufacturing building, assodated parking and landscaping on one acre. The
applicant is proposing a minor exception permit to allow the reduction of the parking requirements
by two (2) spaces. Staff feels there are conditions present that warrant approval of the minor
exception permit. With the approval of the minor exception, the project is consistent with the
Design Guidelines, Development Code and the General Plan.
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No.
655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping
provisions.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets
the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare.
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been previously
disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. There are no native species of
plants or vegetation at the site, nor any indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the
site serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this
project.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 7
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 21
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 37
Exhibits - Blue Page 44
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. Elevations
G. Color Elevations
H. Colors and Materials Board
I. Floor Plan
ATTACHMENT NO, 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA98-0270 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 16,656 SQUARE
FOOT ONE-STORY OFFICE, WAREHOUSE AND
MANUFACTURING BUILDING, ASSOCIATED PARKING, AND
LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING A 1.0 ACRES
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1100 FEET SOUTHWEST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF DIAZ ROAD AND WINCHESTER ROAD AND
KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-310-
009.
WHEREAS, Creative Components filed Planning Application No. PA98-0270 in accordance
with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0270 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0270 on
September 2, 1998, at a duly noticed public headng 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 headng and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desidng to be heard. the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA98-0270;
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. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA98-0270 makes the following findings; to wit:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula
and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655
(Mr, Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions.
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare.
C. The project is consistent with the LI - Light Industrial Zoning on the site,
which permits manufacturing, warehousing, distribution and corporate office uses.
D. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare
species or their habitats, or to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site has been
previously disturbed and graded, and streetscape installed on site. There are no native species
of plants or vegetation at the site, nor any indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site
serves as a migration corridor. A DeMinimus impact finding can be made for this project.
Section 3. Environmental 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration with De Minimus
Findings, therefore, is hereby adopted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA98-0270 to construct and operate a 16,656 square foot office,
industrial, warehouse building, associated parking and landscaping on a parcel containing 1 acre
located approximately 1100 feet southwest of the intersection of Diaz Road and Winchester Road
and known as a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 909-310-009 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto,
and incorporated herein by this reference and made a pad hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of September, 1996.
Marsha Slaven, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of
September, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRFFx270PA98FC DOC
9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA98-0270 (Development Plan)
Project Description: The design and construction of a 16,656 square foot two-story,
office/manufacturing building, associated parking and landscaping on an one acre
site.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-310-009
Approval Date: September 2, 1998
Expiration Date: September 2, 2000
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination
with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and
California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (46) 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 developedapplicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and
any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from
any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside,
void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concemin9 the Plot Plan which action
is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code,
Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo., including but not by the way of limitations
Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim,
action, or proceeding brought within this time pedod. City shall further cooperate fully in the
defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully,
develope~applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or
hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers,
employees, or agents.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated
by this approval.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, or as amended
by these conditions.
a. Eight (8) Class I lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
b. A minimum of twenty five (25) parking spaces shall be provided.
c. A minimum of two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F and Exhibit G (color
elevations), or as amended by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by
these conditions (color and matedal board).
Materials
Concrete (upper section of bldg.)
Concrete (lower section of bldg.)
Concrete (middle section of bldg.)
Concrete ( portion of bldg.)
Metal (roll-up doors)
Metal Canopy
Glazing (Windows)
Main Entry & Accent Color
Aluminum Window Frames
Colors
White (Frazee #FZ001
Cape Code Gray (Frazee #115
Cadmium (Frazee#384
Gray Blue (Frazee 8514
White (Frazee #FZ001
White (Frazee #FZ001
Blue Glass
Gray Blue
Clear Anodized
Landscaping shall be provided in substantial conformanca with Exhibit "E" (Landscape
Plan), or as amended by these conditions, Landscaping installed for the project shall be
continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that
the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to
require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved
landscape plan.
9. The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
10,
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation).
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
11. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
12.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E", or as amended by these conditions.
The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal).
b, One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
13.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
Fees.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
14.
An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage shall be required if signage is proposed.
An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
15. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
16.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape and irrigation
plans.
17.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition
acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds,
disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working
order.
18.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectodzed sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square
inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the
off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously
stating the following:
"Unauthodzed vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for
persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense.
Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 999 696-3000.
19.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the appmved construction
landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department
- Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the
landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the
Planning Manager, the bond shall be released.
20.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
21.
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.
22.
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing compliance
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other
outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building
and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
23.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
24.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
25. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B/S-1/F.
26. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
27.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. {California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994)
28. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
29. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
30. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
31. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
32.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994
edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
33. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
34.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
35.
Provide electrical plan including load celcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
36.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
37. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
38.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls require separate
approvals and permits.
39.
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 site plan all
existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and
drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review
and revision.
General Requirements
40.
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,
41.
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.
42.
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
43.
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,
44.
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.
45.
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.
46.
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.
47.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
48.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
49.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
50.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site
work pe~ormed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
51.
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.
52.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map as Flood Zone AE. This
project shall comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code which may
include obtaining a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA, A Flood Plain Development Permit
shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
53. 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:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. The existing street lights shall be relocated to the location as shown on the site plan
along the Winchester Road adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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
57. 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
58. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the appreved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
59. 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
The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions
regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
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.
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)
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 andadjacent 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)
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)
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. GVVV. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access reads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15)
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15)
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
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 pdor to installation. Plans shall be:
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards.
After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2
and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 )
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (UFC 901.4.3)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, all commercial buildings
shall display street numbers in a prominent location on the street side of the building. The
numerals shall be minimum twelve (12) inches in height for buildings and six (6) inches for
suite identification on a contrasting background. In strip centers, businesses shall post the
suite address on the rear door(s). (UFC 901.4.4 and Ord 95-15)
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 spdnkler 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. (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)
%/TEMEC_F.~201lDATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~270PAgiFC.DOC
19
75.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, building final or occupancy, buildings
housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform Fire Code
Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage
of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or
modifications to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or
all of the following: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity
class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains,
Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. (UFC Article 81)
OTHER AGENCIES
76.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated January 27, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
77.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated January 28, 1998, a copy of which
is attached.
78.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations as set forth in the Police Depadment
transmittal dated February 2, 1998, a copy of which is attached, to the extent practical and
not in conflict with conditions contained herein.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Name
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
Project Title:
Plan)
Lead Agency Name and Address:
Temecula, CA 92589
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Nedo, Ste., Temecula, CA 92590
General Plan Designation:
Zoning:
Description of Project:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Other public agencies whose
approval is required:
Planning Application No. PA98--0270 (Development
City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner (909) 694-6400
Dekkon Development, Scott Buckels, 42346 Rio
BP (Business Park)
LI (Light Industrial)
The design, construction and operation of a one-
story 16,656 sq. ft. office, warehouse and
manufacturing building on an one (1) acre site.
The project is located in a area that has been
previously graded, street improvements have been
made and water and sewer are within vicinity of
the project. Land to the east is vacant, and to the
north, south, and west are existing
industrial/warehouse/office buildings. Rancho
California Water District is directly north of the
subject site.
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside
County Health Department, Temecula Police
Department, Eastern Municipal Water District,
Rancho California Water District, Southern
California Gas Company, Southern California
Edison Company, General Telephone Company,
and Riverside Transit Agency.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] Hazards
[ ] Population and Housing [ ] Noise
[X] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[X] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality [X] Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been
added to the project. A NEGATWE DECLARATION will be prepared.
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
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 vicimty?
(Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17)
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. irapacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
(Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17)
e. Dismpt or divide the physical arrangement ofan established
community (including low-income or minority commtmity)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population
projects?
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture?
b. Seismic ground shaking?
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic heard?
e. Landslides or mudflows?
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions
form excavation, grading or fill?
g. Subsidence of the land?
h. Expansive soils?
I. Unique geologic or physical features7
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?.
b. Exposureofpeopleorpropertytowaterrelatedhazards
such as flooding? (Source 2, Figure 13, Page 95 and
Source 2, Figure 30, Page 190)
c. Discharge into sufface waters or other alteration ofsurfaee
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
Potemially
Signi~c,a~
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
POtentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
lncoroorated
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Less Than
Sigm~eant
I~nact
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x~
[]
Ix]
[]
[]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
[]
No
[x]
ix]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
ix]
[]
[]
[]
Ix]
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g. Altcreddircctionorrateoffiowofgroundwater?
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a. Violate any air quality standard or contxibute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperarare, or cause
any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors?
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle lrips or traffic congestion?
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)?
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, aramals
and birds)?
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
c. Resultinthetossofavailabilityofaknownmineralresource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
Pot~ntjllly
Significant
~,~act
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
Pot~mially
Si~i~cant
Unless
Mitigation
IncorVoramd
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[]
[]
[]
L~,sThan
Significant
lml~act
ix]
[1
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[xl
Ix]
[]
[]
[]
[1
[1
[1
ix]
[]
[]
[]
[l
[1
[x]
[]
NO
[]
Ix]
[]
ix]
ix]
Ix]
ix]
[]
[]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
[x]
ix]
Ix]
[]
[x]
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
[]
Ix]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Ironact
Pow, ntialiy
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Si~i~cam
Impact
No
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemical or radiation)?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
d. Exposure ofpeople to existmg sources ofpotential health
hazards?
e. Increase fLre hazard in areas with fiammable brush,
grass, or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase m existing noise levels?
b. Exposure ofpeople to severe noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e. Other governmental services?
12.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Local or regional water txeatment or distribution
facilities?
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
Ix]
Ix]
[x]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[x]
ix]
[x]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water dramage?
f. Solid waste disposal?
g. Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c. Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
c. Affect historical resources?
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique etlmic cultural values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of resUict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or ammal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history
or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Does the project have impacts that area individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects).
Po~mially
Significant
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Sigm~cant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Significant
[]
[x]
[]
[]
[]
ix]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
ix]
ix]
[]
[]
[]
NO
[x]
[]
ix]
Ix]
ix]
[]
[]
Ix]
[x]
ix]
ix]
[x]
[]
[]
[x]
ix]
ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCF..S
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Poten~nlly
Significant
Ironact
[]
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
[]
Itss Tlan
Significant
[]
No
Impact
ix]
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
4. City of Temecula Development Code
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Planning
1 .a,b
The preject will not conflict with applicable envirenmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project. The project is consistent with the Citys General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business
Park). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in fie Envirenmental ImpactReport
for (EIR) the Generel Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope ofthe analysis
contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures
approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are
also being given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the
appropriate comments as to how the prejeot relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The site
has been previously greded and services within preximity of the preject. There will be limited, if any
environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the preject.
No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
1 .c,e.
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-
income or minority community). The project is a manufacturing/warehouse/office use in an area surrounded
by land that is currently planned to be developed with similar uses. There is no established residential
community (including low-income or minodty community) at this site. No significant effects are anticipated as
a result of this project.
Population and Housing
2.a.
The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The preject is an
industrial/office/warehouse use which is consistent with the City's Generel Plan Land Use Designation of
Business Park. Since the preject is consistent with the Citys General Plan, and does not exceed the floor area
ratio for Business Park, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed
official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this preject.
2.b.
The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent
with the General Plan Land Use Designation of BP (Business Park). The project will cause people to relocate
to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it witl not induce substantial grewth in the area. No
significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
2.c.
The preject will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant; therefore no
housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
GeoloGic Preblems
3.a.
3.b,
C,g,h.
The project will result in a less than significant impact on people as a result of fault rupture. The project is not
located in a fault zone or within a fault setback area; therefore no significant effects are anticipated as a result
of this project.
The preject will have a less than significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking; however, there
may be a potentially significant impact from seismic greund failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils.
The project is located in Southem California, an area which is seismically active. Any potentially significant
impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code
standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application
submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of
approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations forthe compaction of the soil which will serve
to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction,
subsidence and expansive soils. After mitigafion measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated
as a result of this project.
3.d.
The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area
where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project,
3.e.
The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows, The Final Environmental Impact for the City of
Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate
to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.f.
The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography, grading or fill. The
site has been previously graded and the project does not propose significant grading beyond that which has
already occurred. Increased wind and water erosion of soils beth 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 grading will be
the minimum necessary for the realization of the project, modification to topography and ground surface relief
features will not be considered significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or ~ll will
be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are
performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.i.
The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical
features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Water
4.a.
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage pattems and the rate and amount of surface
runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant. Previously permeable ground will be
rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscapo 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.
The project will have a less than significant to people or property to water related hazards such as flooding
because the project site has been elevated outside of the 100 year floodway as a result of grading performed
prior to project approval. However;, the project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City
of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing
emergency response systems and by assudng 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,
The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface watem and alteration of surface
water quality. Pdor to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with
the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be
mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result ofthis project.
4 .d ,e.
The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody
or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur
because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying
hardscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage will not
considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.f-h.
The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of
ground waters; however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. Further,
construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.i.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water otheRvise available for
public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City
of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho Califomia Water Distdct indicate that they can accommodate additional
water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will
need to be provided by Rancho California Water Distdct (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion
of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
Air Quality
5.a.
The project will not violate any air quality standard or centhbute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
The project (16,656 square feet of manufacturing/warehouse/office) is below the threshold for potentially
significant air quality impact (276,000 square feet) established by South Coast Air Quality Management District
(Page 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook). No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.b.
The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants in proximity to
the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.c.
The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The limited
scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.d.
The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of
short duration and are not considered significant.
Transportation/Circulation
6.a.
While the project may result in an incrementel increase in traffic congestion it will result in a less than significant
increase in vehicle trips. It is anticipated that this project will contribute less than a less 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 that 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 fees as conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
,/TEMEC_FS201/DATA\DEPTS/PLANNING\STAFFRPT~270pAggPC.DOC
31
6.b.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City
standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
6.c.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is 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.
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.
6.e,
The project will not result in a less than significant impact from hazards or barders for pedestrians or bicyclists.
Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
6,f.
The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation. The project
was transmitted to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and based upon their 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.
The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterbome 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.
Bioloclical Resources
7.a.
The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including,
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously graded.
Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, reare, threatened or endangered species of plants,
no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at
this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barder to the migration of animals
or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the StepheWs Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area.
Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.b.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected
in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this
project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7,c.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.d.
The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site or within proximity
to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.e.
The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not save
as part of a migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Enerq¥ and Mineral Resources
8.a.
The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed
for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation dudng the plan check stage. No
permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.
The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion
of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the
subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed
development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
8.c,
The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known minerel resoume that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State. No known minerel 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.
Hazards
9.a.
The project will not result in a dsk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an
accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The saree is true for the use, storage,
transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. Large quantities of these types of substances will not
be associated with this use. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and the
applicant must receive their clearance pdor to any plan check submittal. This applies to storage and use of
hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.b.
The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluafion plan. The subject
site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from
a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.c.
The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be
reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws dudng the plan check stage. No permits will be issued
unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
9.d.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potenfial health hazards. No health hazards are known
to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.e.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. The
project is an industrial/warehouse development in an area of existing and future similar uses. The project is
not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Noise
10.a.
The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant
and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels dudng 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 antjcipated as a result of this project
in either the short or long-term.
10.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels dudng 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 headng 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 Iong-te~Tn exposure of people
to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Public Services
11.a,b
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police
protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will
conthbute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
11.c.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities.
The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and
therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
11.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads.
Funding for maintenanse of roads is dedvad from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula
from the State of California. impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of
development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax
is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses.
11 .e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemmental services. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Utilities and Service Systems
12.a.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or naturel
gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
12.b. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication
systems (referonce response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12 .c. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterefions to local or regional
water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.d.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer
systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final
Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) forthe C~s General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated
an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states:
"implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)."
Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
12.e.
The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations
to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The
drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12f
The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems.
Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in
any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
12.g The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional
water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Aesthetics
13.a.
The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in a area where there is
a scenic vista, Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b.
The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The applicant and architect worked with City
staff to ensure a design that complies with the City-Wide Design Guidelines. The building is relatively consistent
with other designs in the area. The enhanced landscaping and additional architectural treatments will provide
additional aesthetic enhancement that will result in a quality designed building. Therefore, no adverse visual
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.c.
The project will have a less that significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in
a minimum amount of light or glare considering the scope of the project. However, all light and glare has the
potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory; therefore the project will be conditioned to be consistent
with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light PoIlution). With the conditions of approval, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
14.a-c.
The project will not have an impact on paleontolegical, archaeological or historical resources. The site has been
disturbed from pitor grading activity and any impacts to these resources would have been mitigated dudng the
grading process. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.d. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values. Reference response 14.a-c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.e
The project will not restdct 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.
Recreation
15.a,b. Thepr~jectwi~~havea~essthansigni~cantimpact~rincmaseindemandforneighb~rh~~d~rregi~na~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 recreational resources or oppertunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
//TEMEC_FS201/DATAiDEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTx270PA98PC. DOC
36
ATi'ACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
!/TEMEC_FS201/DATA/DEPTS/PLANNING/STAFFRPT~270pA98pC DOC
37
Geologic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA98-0270
(Development Plan, Creative Components)
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered 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,
General impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Processes:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457.
Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public
Works.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill.
Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development
Code.
Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning
Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Planning Department.
Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic
ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake
hazards.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check,
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
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
Water
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns
and the rate and amount of surface runoff.
Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact
adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances, have been
incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans.
Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permit.
Department of Public Works.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality
(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity).
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and traffic
impacts.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Department.
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site.
Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate the use.
Install on-site parking spaces pursuant to the City's minimum
Development Code parking standards.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Department of Public Works, Planning Department and Building & Safety
Department.
Biological 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:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but
not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat
habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental
services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally increase
the need for fire protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the
maintenance of service provision.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for Fire Mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
AESTHETICS
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities,
including roads.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic
impacts, and public facilities.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Department.
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare
that could affect the Palomar Observatory.
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
~TEMEC_FS201/DATA/DEPTSIPLANNING/STAFFRPT/270PAg~CDOC
44
CITY OF TEMECULA
vICINITT
~,j L~< TO p~r_~ sse (E-5) H ~5~'~ E~)FRC~ ~F ~JYERSID~ ~
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0270 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 2, 1998
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRPT\270PA98PC 8/20/98 pa
CITY OF TEMECULA
,> BP
EXHIBIT B- ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)
EXHIBIT C- GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK)
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0270 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 2, 1998
R\STAFFRPTX270PA98.PC 8/20/98 pa
CITY OF TEMECULA
5LTE PLaN 5c~8 l',2~-6'
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0270 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 2, 1998
SITE PLAN
R:/STAFFRFI'%270pA98 PC 8/20/98 pa
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0270 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 2, 1998
R:\STAFFRPT',270PA98.PC 8/20/98 pa
LANDSCAPE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
rh
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0270 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- September 2, 1998
ELEVATIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0270 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- September 2, 1998
ELEVATIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98,0270 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 2, 1998
COLORED ELEVATIONS
R:~STAFFRPTX270PA98.PC 8/21/98 pa
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0270 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - I
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 2, 1998
FLOOR PLAN
R:\STAFFRFT~270PA98.PC 8/21/98pa
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0270 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - H
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - September 2, 1998
COLORS & MATERIALS
R:/STAFFRPTL270PA98PC 8/21/98 pa
ITEM #3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 2, 1998
Planning Application No. PA95-0079 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257)
Prepared By: Carole K. Donahoe, AICP, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
ADOPT Resolution No. 98- denying Planning Application
No. PA95-0079 based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report
William and Michael Peruchetti
Michael L. Benesh
To subdivide approximately 2.9 acres into four (4) residential lots
South side of Pauba Road, between La Primavera Street and
Showalter Road
L2 Low Density Residential, lot sizes from 0.5 to 1.0 net acre.
North: PI Public Institutional
South: L1 and L2 Low Density Residential, 0.5 to 2.5 net acres
East: L2 Low Density Residential, 0.5 to 1.0 net acres lot size
West: LM Low Medium Density Residential, 3-6 units per acre
N/A
L Low Density Residential, 0.5 to 2 units/acre max.
Partially constructed single family dwelling, workshop used as
dwelling and accessory structures
R:\STAFFRPT\79pa95.STAFFRPT.PC.doc
1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Community Lutheran Church
Single Family Residences and Vacant Lots
Single Family Residences
Single Family Residences
BACKGROUND
The subject site has been under consideration for development for several years. Originally,
Tentative Tract Map No. 26944 was submitted on Apdl 12, 1991, but was eventually withdrawn on
September 14, 1993, after staff had requested a reconfiguration of lot design and access. On
August 16, 1995, Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257 was submitted and a Development Review
Committee comment letter was sent September 26, 1995. On October 25, 1995, the applicant
requested a postponement of activity on the project, and no further response was received.
In an attempt to formally close the case file, staff contacted the applicant in December of 1997.
On January 28, 1998 Mr. Peruchetti requested he be allowed to reactivate the map. He was given
until February 27, 1998 to submit a redesigned map, which was ultimately received on March 13,
1998. A second Development Review Committee meeting was held on April 2, 1998, and a
comment letter sent April 21, 1998, giving the applicant 30 days to address ongoing concerns with
the project design. The applicant requested additional time to work on the redesign, and a revised
map was finally submitted on July 15, 1998. Staff sent a comment letter dated August 5, 1998,
informing the applicant and his engineer that the revised map still failed to address the City's many
aFeas of CORCeFn.
After several review cycles with the applicant, staff concluded that a workable design acceptable
to the applicant and the City could not be developed for the site. Therefore, the applicant was
notified that the case would be noticed for public hearing before the Planning Commission with a
recommendation for denial from staff.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION & ANALYSIS
Site Constraints
The subject site lies within the Chaparral Special Studies Area, an area identified within the City's
General Plan as requiring special development considerations to assure that development does
not exceed the carrying capacity of the area, while still providing appropriate transitions of density.
The Chaparral Area is characterized by moderately sloped hillsides above dry washbeds, with
segmented lot patterns of varying sizes. The General Plan limits the encroachment of grading,
construction or surface alteration into the natural slopes, drainage courses and sensitive biological
resources in this area. Therefore, careful siting of building pads, driveways, septic and leach fields
are required on the tentative map. Contour grading is encouraged; however, retaining walls are
discouraged, particularly in public view.
The applicant has continued to propose a four-lot division of the property, with pad locations (when
noted) that require extensive grading.
R:\STAFFRPT\79pa95.STAFFRPT.FC.dOC
2
The Public Works Department has indicated concerns regarding drainage, and requested a
Drainage Study in order to mitigate these concerns. The preliminary Drainage Study received July
15, 1998 shows drainage outletting through the property to the south. No assurances have been
provided that a drainage easement from the adjacent property owner is feasible.
Environmental Health
The Riverside County Department of Environmental Health was unable to make recommendations
regarding this project without the applicant submitting a Soils Percolation Test and other
information. This applicant has not done this. No clearance from Environmental Health has been
received.
Cultural Resources
Staff requested clearance be obtained from the University of California Eastern Information Center
regarding the potential for cultural resources on the property. The applicant has not provided the
information or fees necessary to obtain this clearance.
Code Violations
During staff's site visit several code violations were evident on the property, including use of the
workshop building as a residence, abandoned vehicles, trash, structures built without permits and
possible health hazards. Code Enforcement staff opened a violation case file on the property and
are taking steps to rectify these violations.
Access and Circulation
The most recent maps propose a singular roadway from Pauba Road, This proposed private cul-
de-sac is shown with varying grades, ranging from the15% maximum allowed to 2%. Individual
residential driveways from the pdvate cul-de-sac are also shown ranging in grade from 6% to 15%.
The Fire Department has indicated concerns about ensuring emergency vehicle access both from
Pauba Road onto the private cul-de-sac, and through the grade transitions along the length of the
cuPde-sac and through the driveways to the individual residences. In order to obtain a 32-foot wide
access roadway from Pauba Road, the applicant has designed a 130-foot long crib wall, visible
from Pauba heading east. The crib wall appears to be approximately 30 feet in height. The
applicant has not provided specific information that staff had previously requested regarding grade
transitions and the crib wall.
Maps proposed in 1995 had shown a proposed 20-foot access easement from Estero Street to the
south. However, the applicant was unable to verify the existence of this easement. In 1995, staff
received correspondence from China Sea Development Corporation, the adjacent owner to the
south, that refutes the existence of the proposed easement, and recommends measures to resolve
issues and reach settlement on the granting of an easement. Also, staff has strongly suggested
working with adjacent property owners to the east, west or south, to obtain other access options,
however, the engineer has indicated that all these alternatives were unsuccessful.
R:\STAFFRPT\79pa95.STAFFRPT,PC.dOC
3
SUMMARWCONCLUSIONS
Staff feels that areas of concem regarding the project have been identified and discussed at length
with the applicant. Staff continues to feel that the project design is unworkable, does not meet
Code requirements nor mitigates environmental impacts. In discussions with both the applicant
and his engineer on August 18, 1998, no alternative designs or access options are available.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the project.
FINDINGS
The proposed land division is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan
designation calls for Low Density Residential, 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre maximum.
The proposed four lot subdivision on 2.85 acres complies with this density designation.
The design or improvement of the proposed land division is inconsistent with the General
Plan. The site is identified as being within the Chaparral Area which requires special
development considerations and limits the encroachment of grading, construction or surface
alteration into the natural slopes, drainage courses and sensitive biological resources in this
area. The project is inconsistent with the General Plan because careful siting of building
pads, driveways, septic and leach fields has not been accomplished; little contour grading
has been designed; and a 130-foot long crib wall in clear view from Pauba Road is
proposed.
The site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the type of development.
The site has steep slopes along Pauba Road as well as in the interior of the property. Flat
areas are limited to proposed Parcels 4 and 2 where structures already exist. The site is
not physically suitable because the proposed development and access will require
encroachment into the natural slopes, drainage courses and sensitive biological resources.
The site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
the development. Flat areas are limited to proposed Parcels 4 and 2 where structures
already exist. The site is not physically suitable because the proposed development and
access will require encroachment into the natural slopes, drainage courses and sensitive
biological resources.
The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat. The design of the proposed land division requires encroachment into natural
slopes and grading of natural vegetation for pad sites and access.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are likely to cause
serious public health problems. The Fire Department concerns regarding access for
emergency vehicles have not been adequately addressed. The proposed project may
cause serious hazards should there be inadequate access for emergency vehicles.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within
the proposed land division.
R:\STAFFRPT\79pa955TAFFRPT.PC.doc
4
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibits - Blue Page 9
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C General Plan Map
Development Review Committee Comment Letters - Blue Page 10
A. September 26, 1995
B. April 21, 1998
C. August 5, 1998
Correspondence Received - Blue Page 11
A. China Sea Development Corporation, dated September 18, 1995
B. Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, dated March 30, 1998
C. Robert and Evelyn Backstrom, dated August 26, 1998
R:\STAFFRPT\79pa95.STAFFRPTPC.doc
5
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
R:\STAFFRPT\79pa95.STAFFRFFPC.dcc
6
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-
0079 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28257) TO SUBDIVIDE A
2.85 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR (4) PARCELS LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF PAUBA ROAD BETWEEN LA PRIMAVERA
AND SHOWALTER ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 945-070-006, -007, -015 AND -016.
WHEREAS, William and Michael Peruchetti filed Planning Application No. PA95-0079 which
is not in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Riverside
County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA95-0079 was processed including, but not limited
to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA95-0079 on
September 2, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City
staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition
to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission denied Planning Application No. PA95-0079;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in denying Planning
Application No. PA95-0079, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 7.1 of
County Ordinance No. 460:
1. The proposed land division is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan
designation calls for Low Density Residential, 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre maximum. The
proposed four lot subdivision on 2.85 acres complies with this density designation.
2. The design or improvement of the proposed land division is inconsistent with the General
Plan. The site is identified as being within the Chaparral Area which requires special development
considerations and limits the encroachment of grading, construction or surface alteration into the
natural slopes, drainage courses and sensitive biologicel resources in this area. The project is
inconsistent with the General Plan because careful siting of building pads, driveways, septic and
leach fields has not been accomplished; little contour grading has been designed; and a 130-foot
long crib wall in clear view from Pauba Road is proposed.
R:\STAFFRFr\79pa95STAFFRFF PC.doc
7
3. The site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the type of development.
The site has steep slopes along Pauba Road as well as in the interior of the property. Flat areas
are limited to proposed Parcels 4 and 2 where structures already exist. The site is not physically
suitable because the proposed development and access will require encroachment into the natural
slopes, drainage courses and sensitive biological resources.
4. The site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
the development. Flat areas are limited to proposed Parcels 4 and 2 where structures already
exist. The site is not physically suitable because the proposed development and access will require
encroachment into the natural slopes, drainage courses and sensitive biological resources
5. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat. The design of the proposed land division requires encroachment into natural slopes and
grading of natural vegetation, for pad sites and access.
6. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are likely to cause
serious public health problems. The Fire Department concerns regarding access for emergency
vehicles has not been adequately addressed. The proposed project may cause serious hazards
should there be inadequate access for emergency vehicles.
7. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the
proposed land division.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this second day of September, 1998.
Marcia Slaven, Chairperson
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 second day of
September, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANN|NG COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRPT\79pa95STAFFRI~T.PC.doc
8
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R\STAFFRPT\79pa95STAFFRPT.PC.doc
9
CITY OF TEMECULA
pAL
SAN TIA GO
TENTA TItlE TRACT NO. 28257
COLINA
~ERDE
ROAD
SHOWAL TER
ROAD
ESTERO STREET
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA95-0079
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: September 2, 1998
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - L2 Low Density Residential, 0.5 to I net acre lot size
LM
LM
VL
LM
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION L Low Density Residential, 0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre maximum
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA95-0079 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: September 2, 1998
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMENT LETTERS
September 26, t995
1909) 694-1989 · FAX tq~09) 694-I999
Michael Benesh
Benesh Engineering
404 S. Live OakPark Road
FaHbrook, CA 92028
Subject:
Development Review Committee (DRC) comments for Planning Application
No. PA95-0079
Dear Mr. Benesh:
On September 21, 1995, City staff held a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting to
discuss the above referenced project with you and your clients. At that meeting, staff
presented several issues that needed to be addressed to consider the project complete and
continue the processing of the project. However, the State mandated 30-day review period to
determine a project complete has expired. Thus, by default, the project is now considered
complete and case processing shall continue.
While the project is considered complete, the project is inconsistent with the General Plan
relative to parcel size and design and Ordinance No. 460 relative to adequate access.
Because of these inconsistencies, it is staff's recommendation that the project, in its' current
form, be denied.
As an alternative to project denial, the applicant may wish to withdraw their application and
submit a new application that addresses the issues raised at the DRC meet'rag. This would
restart the case processing time frames. Should you and your client choose to withdraw and
submit a new application, the application fees for the existing project would be transferred to
the new application. Should the applicant choose solely to withdraw the application, a
portion of the application fees would be eligible for refund.
Should the applicant choose to submit a new application, the foliowing items shall be
addressed:
R:\PL~G\79PA95,DRC 9/26/95 Ires
Fire Department
Ordinance No. 460 requires that public access is provided from each parcel of a land
division to a road the is maintained for public use (Sect. 3. 10.A) This requirement
can be waived ff "No parcel under one acre in size is created..." (Section 3.10.B).
The current provision to provide access to two newly created parcels under one acre
in size will not be permitted per City Ordinance. Therefore, the project will be
required to be redesigned.
Planning Department
2. An amended site plan which incorporates the following:
e,
Provide "Net" and "Gross" lot area calculations.
Change the "proposed Zoning from "RR" to "L-2".
Show the topo lines for all of parcel No. 4 and the adjacent parcel.
Show the location of the existing drainage culvert that exits on the adjacent
southerly parcel.
Show the pad area and leach field location for existing and proposed parcels.
Identify constraint areas (25 % slope, and natural drainage courses) and provide
a calculation of the amount of encroachment into said constraint areas.
Provide a cross-section of the slope to be created in the southeasterly comer of
Parcel No. 4.
Public Works Department
3. Revise the tentative parcel map to show the following:
Sections and proposed improvements along proposed access easements;
Existing utilities; and
Turning radius for access to Parcels 1 and 4.
4. Submit the following items:
Preliminary Title Report
Drainage Study
Preliminary Soils Report
The Applicant must acquire the fights to the proposed 20' access easement and 10'
drainage easement prior to Iresubmitting the project.
Off-site letter of permission to grade in a format acceptable to the Director of Public
Works from Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 24633 and Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 13888.
7. This map will be conditioned for the following:
Construction of sidewalk along property frontage upon completion of Pauba
Road by others.
Installation of street lights if it falls within the street light spacing.
Y concrete v-gutter shall be contained in a undersidewalk drain on Pauba
Road.
The Signal Mitigation, Area Drainage, and Development Impact fees shall be
paid to the City unless the Applicant verities that said fees have been paid.
Community Services Department
Payment of Quimby fees will be required prior to the issuance of each building permit
for each parcel.
9. All slopes and open space areas shall be maintained by the property owners.
10.
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, any street lights required for this
subdivision must be dedicated to the City for maintenance purposes.
It shall be the applicant's option to either continue processing this application, withdraw this
application and/or submit a new application based upon the above comments. If you should
have any questions concerning the above information, please contact Craig Ruiz at (909) 694-
6400.
Sincerely,
Craig D."'R~
Assistant Planner
CCi
William Peruchetti, 5550 Marengo, La Mesa, CA 91941
Laura Cabral, Fire Department
Steve Creeswell, Public Works Department
Beryl Yasinosky, TCSD
f' City f T 1
o emecu a
43200 Business Park Drive · PO Box 9033 · Temecula · California 92589-9033
(909) 694-6400 ·FAX (909) 694-6477
April 21, 1998
Michael A. Peruchetti
Affordable Door and Window Supply
42387 Avonida Alvarado, Suite #102
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Second Development Review Committee Cornsnents for Planning Application No.
PA95-0079 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257)
Dear Mr. Peruchetti:
On April 2, 1998 City staff held a second Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting to
discuss the above-referenced map with you and your engineer. At the meeting, staff discussed
several areas of concern regarding your project, including topographic constraints, access gades,
septic system and pad locations. At the meeting you promised to submit a 1995 Preliminary, Ti~e
Report as well as an updated Report within two weeks. To date, we have received neither
document.
Because of the significant time periods that have occurred on this project, if we do not hear from
you within 30 days of your receipt of this letter, we shall assume that due to the numerous
changes requested, you are no longer interested in completing this application and we shall close
the case~Ie. The action of closure will terminate all rights and privileges arising under this
application. In the event you desire to recommence subdivision you will be required to refile the
necessary application fees and materials.
Should you choose to resubmit documents that address the issues raised at the DRC meeting, I
have summarized the DRC comments as follows:
Public Wor'ks - Annie Bostre-Le, Assistant Engineer
Pursuant to the DRC meeting of April 2, 1998, the following comments and requirements shall
be complied with and submitted for review and approval prior to our setting the Conditions of
Approval for the above project.
Revise the Tentative Parcel Map to show the following:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
9.
i0.
vicimty Map shall be labeled" Tentative Parcel Map 28257"
Accurate topography to reflect existing conditions
Label contours
Extend topography to the east of Parcel 1
Existing and proposed improvements to Pauba Road
Existing utilities, including street light
Cross section of the following:
a. Pauba Road
b. Westerly project boundary between Parcel 3 and Lot 12 of Tract Map No. 18583
c. Southerly project boundary between Parcel 3 and APN 945-070-017
d. Southerly project boundary between Parcel 2 and APN 945-070-018
e. Easterly project boundary between Parcel 1 and APN 945-070-015
Extend topography to the east of Parcel 1
Clarify how the existing driveway ties into the house on APN 945-070-014
The private street shall be at a minimum width of 32' (Ordinance 460, Section 3.3 D)
Please provide the following:
11.
i2.
Preliminary Title Report
Drainage study
Additional comments:
13. The applicant must acquire the rights to the proposed access easement and drainage
easement prior to approval of this tentative map
14. The applicant shall grant an irrevocable perpetual ingress/egress easement to APN 945
070-014. This easement shall be recorded prior to the recordation of Parcel Map 28257.
We anticipate this project will be conditioned for the following items:
i5.
16.
17.
I8.
19,
20.
2I.
Construct sidewalk on Pauba Road along property frontage
Install street light on Pauba road along property frontage (If it falls within street light
spacing)
Vacate Pauba Road along property frontage
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or easements for offsite work
performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be verified.
Any upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required, shall be provided as part of the
development of this project.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed t~ough
undersidewalk drains.
The Applicant shall pay all prevailing applicable fees, ie. Development Impact Fee and
Area Drainage Plan fee
Fire Department - Norm Davidson, Fire Safety Specialist
A Fire Department representative has reviewed the above mention case and has the following
comment or corrections:
22. Show driveway grades maximum not to exceed 15%.
23. Provide a 10-scale cross-section of the grade transition from Pauba Rd to your road.
24. No parking along the entire length of the proposed road will be permitted in order to
maintain the 24-foot minimum drive width.
25. Show locations of all existing fire hydrants and provide new hydrants at beginning and end
of new street.
26. Driveways must take there access from a public or private street. NOT AN EASEMENT.
All questions regarding this letter shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau staff.
Temecula Community Services District ~ Beryl Yasinosky, Development Services Analyst
27.
28.
29.
Payment of Quimby fees will be required prior to the issuance of each building perm it for
each parcel.
All slopes and open spaces shall be maintain by the property owners.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, any street lights required for this
subdivision must be dedicated to the City for maintenance purposes.
Planning Department - Carole Donahoe, Project Planner
30. Please show all existing structures, buildings, walls and fences on the site, and their
proximity to proposed parcel lines.
31. Show the "remainder parcel" as "parcel 4" and indicate t~e location of its leach fields.
32. Relocate leach fields which must be traversed by vehicular access or parking.
33. Comply with the requirements of the County of Riverside Depsxtment of Environmental
Health, as noted in their correspondence dated March 30, 1998 attached.
34. Correct the map number on the vicinity map.
35. Provide an alternative design that eliminates the proposed crib wall with a height of I8
feet.
36. A radius map was not included in the packets for public hearing notices. I have attached
a copy of Section I- Public Hearing Requirements for your convenience.
37. Environmental clearance requires review for cultural resources. I have artached a copy
of Section K-University of California Regents for your convenience.
Building and Safety Department - Mark Berg, Plans Examiner
38.
39.
Comply with applicable provisions oft he 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing
and Mechanical Codes; i993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title
24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code.
Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with
ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
40. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construct/on
work.
.t !. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan revie~v.
42. Provide Occupancy approvals for all existing buildings (i.e. finaled building permits or
Certificate of Occupancy)
43. A/I building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994)
44. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
45. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main enid.
46. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
47. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior li~'inng, fire
alarm systems.
-*8. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the I994
edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
49. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
50. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original sig'nature on plans
submitted for plan review.
5 I. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
52. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
53. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
54. A preconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
55. Modular buildings shall be approved and permitted for their intended use by thee State of
California, Department of Housing and Community Development.
During Staffs site visit several code enforcement violations were evident on your property.. A
Ci.ty Code Enforcement Officer will be contacting you shortly to address public health and safer'
concerns requiring u-ra-nediate attention. Additionally, all existing structures and buildings on the
subject property. shall require compliance with the Uniform Building Code: as necessary the City
wili pursue confirmation from you of the status of such improvements.
PA95-0079 is deemed to be incomplete at this time. Should you choose to process this
application, please submit ten (t0) copies of the amended map, two (2) copies of the Preliminary
Title Report, along with the other requested materials to the Planning Depm m~ent. Upon re-
submittal and determination of completeness, staff shall schedule the project for the next available
Planning Commission Meeting. Otherwise, as previously stated, the case shall be determined
closed after 30 days of inactivity.
Should you have any questions .regarding this letter, please call me at (909) 694-6400.
r:',950079 bs 4/13198
Sincerely,
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Project Planner
CO:
Michael L. Benesh
404 South Live Oak Park Road
Fallbrook, CA 92028
Kevin Perucherti
5550 Marengo Avenue
La Mesa, CA 91941
Annie Bostre-Le, Public Works
Norm Davidson, Fire
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official
Mark Berg, Building
Beryl Yasmosk'y, TCSD
Cindy Keirsey, Code Enforcement Officer
r:'950079 bS 4/13/98
f T c"'l
o emecu a
43200 Business Park Drive · PO Box 9033 · Temecula · California 92589-9033
(909) 694-6400 ,FAX (909) 694-6477
August5,1998
Mr. Michael A. Peruchetti
Affordable Door and Window Supply
42387 Avenida Alvarado, Suite #102
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT:
Staff Comments regarding the revised map submitted July 15, 1998 for Planning
Application No. PA95-0079 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257)
Dear Mr. Pemchetti:
Staff has reviewed the most recent revised submittal fi'om your engineer Michael Benesh for the
above-referenced project received July 15, 1998. We continue to find that the areas of concern
discussed with you at the second Development Review Committee Meeting of April 2, 1998, and
summarized in my Comment letter to you dated April 21, 1998, have not been addressed. I am
attaching a copy of the Comment letter for your reference.
Because after several review cycles we still do not have a workable design that addresses all areas
of concern, staff will schedule this case for the September 2, I998 Planning Commission hearing,
and at this time, will be recommending denial.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call our offices at (909) 694-6400.
Sincereiy,
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
Project Planner
cO:
Enclosure:
Michael Benesh, 404 South Live Oak Park Road, Fallbrook, CA 92028
Kevin Pemchetti, 5550 Marengo Avenue, La Mesa, CA 91941
Annie Bostre-Le, Public Works
Norm Davidson, Fire
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official
Mark Berg, Plans Examiner
Beryl Yasinosk),, TCSD
Code Enforcement
Second Development Review Committee Comments dated April 2 I, 1998
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 4
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
China Sea Development Corporation
30222 Corte Cantera
Temecula,Calif. 9259]
September ]8, 1995
City of Temecula, Planning Staff
City of Temecula, Planning Commission
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
RECEIVED
NOV ! i 1995
Re: Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257
Dear Sir or Madam,
This letter shall serve to notify the City planners that Larry
Markham is the engineer of record for China Sea Development
Corporation (CSDC). We are the owners of record of the Estero
Street development that is adjacent to and directly south of
T.P.M. No. 28257, and this letter shall serve as a "Memorandum
for Record".
We wish that you would consider the,following points in regard
to granting the aforementioned subd'ivision.
That, the Estero Street development was designed and
constructed to the City codes and sIandards for: say
$ 130,000.00 servicing seven {7) lots of ]/2 acres each.
That, our engineer, Larry Markham and the City attorney
have been working on a reimbursement agreement for CSDC
for the past three years, with negative results to date.
The minutes of the planning commission mention a re-
imbursement agreemenn would be executed between the City
and CSDC, to ensure CSDC would be repaid for its invest-
ment before building permits would be approved by the
City. A draft reimbursement agreement has been drawn up
by the City attorney and our engineer, Larry Markham,but
not executed.
3. That, CSDC has not approved or granted an easement to any
person or persons.
That, before CSDC shall consider granting or approving
an easement across its property{, the City has to solve
the following adverse, damaging problems and conditions:
(2)
That, T.P.M. No. 28257 will be subject to the
same strict City development codes, standards,
and expenses that were enforced on CSDC for the
Estero Street development.
That, the City recognize there are seven (7)
expensive custom homes approved and constructed
adjacent to or nearby T.P.M. No. 28257, and the
City, in its wisdom, should therefore enforce the
same superior development and construction codes
and standards now in place, to protect these home-
owners.
That, sub-standard development and building codes
should be permitted or apprcved, that would
depreciate the value of the expensive custom homes
now in place.
That, the City, its engineers and planners should
optimize the Estero Street design, and control the
area run-off of water that has been tunneled and
diverted from its original natural water course
and sheeting flow to a concentrated drainage system
by the owners of T.P.M. No. 28257. The run-off is
now being dumped at one drainage point on CSDC's
recorded lot, Parcel 2 (Lot "B") of Parcel Map
No. 24633. Each rainy season, this condition causes
damage and expense to CSDC, plus it has depreciated
the value of the Parcel 2 lee by perhaps as much
as 50%. The above drainage problem was created by
the owners of T.P.M. No. 28257 without the approval
or consent of CSDC.
5. That,before CSDC will consider approving and granting an
easement across CSDC recorded lot- Parcel 2 (Lot"A") of
Parcel Map No. 24633 to accomodate two homeowners, the
following must be resolved and a settlement reached before
T.P.M. No. 28257 is approved by the City:
That,the water run-off and damage problems and
liabilities be permanently cured, without further
expense to CSDC.
That,the design of T.P.H. No. 28257 shall be
approved by the City, CSDC, and other affected
owners, in advance.
c. Tha~,the owners of T.P.M. No. 28257 and the other
owner, or the City shall:
Pay for all development,
menks to be conszructed
standards.
improvements and benner-
to the City codes and
To guarantee the home at 30540 Estero Street
and its recorded lot Parcel 2 (Lot"A") of
Parcel Map No. 24633, shall not De depreciated
in value or damaged. If it is determined that
the approval of T.P.M. No. 28257 depreciates and/
or damages the home at 30540 or its lot, the
damage shall be assessed and CSDC compensated
for the loss of value, depreciation and damage.
d. That,CSDC, and the neighbors shall, in advance,
be compensated by the owners of T.P.M. No.28257,
and the other owners, and/or the City, for the
approval and granEing of an easement across CSDC
recorded Parcel 2, (Lot "A") of Parcel Map No.24633.
6. That, CSDC is represented by our engineer, Larry }larkham,
and our represenzative zn Temecula, Dan Naron, (676-6382).
With best wishes, we trust that mhe City,in its wisdom,shall
see fit to protect Ehe best interest of CSDC and it's neighbors,
who have invested heavil!/in the Estero Street developmenn in
accordance with the City codes and standards, and we remain
SinCerely, \
_ Corporation
cc: A/S
Larry Markham
Mike Benesh
Dan & Denise Naron
Judy Paine
FROM:
County of Riw rs de
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: March 30, 1998
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Carole Donahoe
~N~C~E~RRISON, Environmental Health Specialist
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28257, AMENDED NO. 1 (PA95-0079)
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257 for
this project and cannot make any recommendations until a sanitation letter is filed. The
requirements for a SAN 53 letter are as follows:
a) A satisfactory soils percolation test to prove the project feasible.
b) C-42' s Certification of Existing Systems.
c) Subsurface sewage disposal system for all lots plotted on the grading plans (shown to a
scale) to include 100% expansion.
d) A "will-serve" letter from the agency/agencies serving potable water.
2. All required items must be received by Department of Environmental Health.
CH:dr
(909) 275-8980
August 26, 1998
City of Temecula Planning Comrmssion
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
AUG 2 6 9
Dear Board Members,
By
Refer to Planrung Application No. PA95-0079, the Peruchetti proposal to subdivide 2.85 acres into four
residential parcels
My wife and I own three properties in the immediate area (at Windsor Crest) of the proposed subdivision. Two
of our properties, 30498 Colina Verde, our home, and 30490 Colina Verde, a rental, back to the western edge of
the Peruchetti property. Naturally, we are very concerned over the impact such a proposal would have on
property value and the general welfare and serenity of our well-established community.
Appreciating the Peruchetti's desire to take advantage of the improving real estate market in Temecula, we feel
the following points are worthy of serious consideration as being detrimental to the surrounding community
should the current proposal be approve&
I) Septic tanks leaching downhill from the proposed residences would be a definite health hazard to the
homes below. Having had a hole dug for a pool at my residence at 30498 Colina Verde, I am aware of an
underground stream from Peruchetti's property running downhill and through my backyard. Fluids leaching from
a septic tank would follow the same route
2) Peruchetti's track record of a partially completed house under construction for at least 3 years without
a City of Temecula permit leaves great doubt as to the quality of any building project they would undertake
3 )- It does not appear that the proposed plan allows adequate room for access by firefighting equipmenL
An unreachable housefire in the proposed subdivision would hazard homes in the immediate area.
4) Should the Peruchetti's opt to continue using their present access, a narrow dirt driveway on the west
edge of the former Paine property, that too would be inadequate for the passage of firefighting equipment.
Having viewed the proposal at City Hall, it is noted that the current Peruchetti residence on the east side of their
property is not shown. It is also noted that a great amount of dirt movement will be required to prepare the
property for building, causing unknown changes in drainage condition in the area.
My wife and I recommend denial of the proposed subdivision.
ROBERT I BACKSTROM
EVEYLY P. BACKSTROM