Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout120298 PC Agenda In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, If you need special assistance b participate in this meeting, please contact file office of the Community Devciopment Depaztment at (909) 694-64~. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that msaUng [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Tide II] CALL TO ORDER: FLAG SALUTE: ROLL CALL: TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998, 6:00 PM 43200 Business Park Drive Council Chambers Temecula, CA 92390 Chairman Slaven Reso Next In Order 1/98-044 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 no__t listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state Vour name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda Minutes from October 7, 1998 and October 21, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Planning Application No. PA98-0413 (Development Plan) Applicant: Zevo 35 (Michael Reeves) Location: South side of Zevo Drive, West of Diaz Road Proposal: The design, construction and operation of a moving, storage, and warehousing business 14,560 square foot building. Environmental Action: Mitigated Negative Declaration Planner: John De Gange, Project Planner Recommendation: Approval 4. 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, Project Planner Recommend Denial R:/WiMBERVG\PLANCOMM',AGENDAS\12-2-98 11/30/98 vgw Case No.: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) City of Temecula East of Pala Road, South of State Highway 79 South To amend the General Plan designation for the site from Office and Neighborhood Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial, in accordance with Exhibit A; and To change the Zoning Map for the site from Professional Office and Neighborhood Commercial to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-1) Dave Hogan Recommend Approval Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Change of Zone) and PA98- 0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810) Markham & Associates On the south side of Margadta Road approximately 1,400 feet east of Moraga Road. To subdivide 7.31 acres into 78 single family detached dwellings and two open space/park lots within a planned development oveday district. Environmental Action: Mitigated Negative Declaration Planner: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner Recommendation: Recommend Approval Case No: Planning Application No. PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract Map 28510) Applicant: Woodside Homes Location:- Within the Campus Verdes Specific Plan at the northeast corner of Margadta Road and North General Keamy Road (south of W~nchester Road). Proposal: To subdivide 71.1 acres into 242 residential lots, I commercial lot and I park lot. Environmental Action: Determination of consistency with a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR No. 348) was previously cartitled for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Planner: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner Recommendation: Continue Off Calendar PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT COMMISSIONER REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: December 16, 1998, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California R:\WIMBERVG\PLANCOMMXAGENDAS\I2-2-98 11/25/98 vgw ITEM #2 MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 7, 1998 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1998 CALLTO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, October 7, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Guerdero, Naggar, Soltysiak, Webster, and Chairwoman Slaven. Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Cudey, Senior Planner Fagan, Assistant Planner Anders, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS NO commeRts. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda Chairwoman Slaven recommended changing the order of the items on the agenda, to accommodate public headng items as follows: Agenda Item No. 8 was noted that the applicant was requesting a continuance, and Agenda Item No. 9 be heard prior to Items 4, 5, 6, and 7. MOTION: Commissioner Guerdero moved to approve the agenda, as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. Approval of Minutes - August 5, 1998, and August 19, 1998 MOTION: Commissioner Guerdero moved to approve the August 5, 1998, Planning Commission minutes as wdtten. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. MOTION: Commissioner Guerdero moved to approve the August 19, 1998, Planning Commission minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 3. Director's Hearing Update Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that although the agenda matedai incorrectly indicated that Planning Application No. PA98-0351 as approved, it has been continued. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Planning Application NO. PA95-0079 {Tentative Parcel Map No. 28357) A request to subdivide 2.85 acres into four (4) residential parcels. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission continue the request. Chairwoman Slaven noted there were no requests to speak. The matter was continued to the November 4, 1998. Planning Commission meeting. 9. Planning Application No. PA97-0420 (Development Plan) A request to design, construct, and operate a senior care facility including a 121 unit assisted car facility building, a 141 unit senior apartment building, two medical office buildings total 27,700 sq. ft., an Alzheimer facility of 7,200 sq. ft., 69 independent care housing units with a detached clubhouse and pool, and associated parking and landscaping. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff repod (of record); advised that the applicant conducted a community workshop January 10, 1998; that although the community was not opposed to the project, their primary concern was increase in traffic; noted that for the record, staff received 12 phone calls -- 6 in opposition, 6 in suppod, and 4 letters - 1 in opposition, 3 in suppod; dadfled that the developer will be installing the signal at Pala Road and Loma Linda Road for a Development Impact Fee credit, and construct road improvements on Pala Road, Loma Linda Road, and Temecuia Lane - the improvements conditioned upon a Cedificate of Occupancy; advised that the applicant has requested flexibility with regard to changing the unit mix, floor plans, and square footages as the market dictates (per Condition No. 9); commented that as to landscaping, the project far exceeds the landscape requirements; and noted that staff recommends, for visual interest, additional color trim. With regard to the construction of bus bays, Director of Public Works Parks clarified for Commissioner Naggar Condition No. 61. For Commissioners Slaven and Naggar, Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified the issue of safety services, including the proposed fire station plans. Assistant Planner Anders clarified, for Commissioner Naggar, with regard to the applicant's request for flexibility, that this request encompasses modifying size and unit mix, not a change in unit count. With regard to Condition No. 67, Director of Public Wonks Parks advised, for Commissioner Webster, that if it is the Commission's desire to condition this project to the completion of the Pala Bddge Project additional clarification of the condition would be needed. He further noted that the City is on schedule for completion of this project for December of 1999. Addressing hazardous materials, Commissioner Guerdem recommended that additional language be added to specifically address the above-ground, or underground storage of gas cylinders. For Chairwoman Slaven, Assistant Planner Anders clarified that the road improvements will be completed before stage one of occupancy on the project. With regard to signalization at Pala Road and Loma Linda Road. Director of Public Works Parks clarified the City's intent to install the signal prior to June, 1999, advising that the purpose of coordinating the signalization with the developer is to preclude the developer, at a later point in time, having to modify an existing signal. With regard to the flood plain issue, Director of Public Works Parks clarified the mitigating design measure; further clarified as to Conditions No. 45, and No. 50, noting that if the project were able to prevent any additional runoff into the channel, no additional improvements will be necessary. Mr. Larry Markham, architect representing the applicant, commended staff and Assistant Planner Anders on the excellent work done; clarified, in detail, the road improvements in the area of the project site; noted the construction cycle for occupancy as 12 to 18 months; as to Condition No. 67, agreed with the aforementioned amendment; voiced no objection to specified disclosure of the compressed gas cylinders; and addressed flood plain issues, clarifying the intent was to not divert or increase any flows. For Commissioner Webster, with regard to the installation of the Pala Road traffic signal, clarified that although the projected time-frame for construction was late 1999, the applicant would be willing to accelerate the project as directed by the City Council; for Commissioner Naggar, addressed the properly the development has dedicated for use at the Pala Road improvement, if deemed necessary; for Commissioner Soltysiak, with regard to Condition No. 93, clarified the development's (Quimby) park land requirements, specifically applying a 50% credit for provided on-site amenities; for Chairwoman Slaven, clarified the retention basin, specifically the collector sites for intedor drainage at the northwest and southwest comers of the project. Mr. Bdan Sesko, the applicant, addressed for the Commission the construction timing and overall project plan; clarified the traffic light conditions at Loma Linda; addressed market conditions dictating the construction's initial direction, thereby requiring flexibility; for Chairwoman Slaven, advised that he was agreeable to additional color being added to the tdm; for Commissioner Naggar, noted that the medical facility would begin the construction process once the first phase reached a 75-80% occupancy; for Commissioner Soltysiak, specified the project is fenced and gated with wrought iron, noting that at Loma Linda Road there is existing fencing, and at Pala Road there is a concrete wall. Sally Kmfft, 30933 Loma Linda, stated that her primary concem regarding the project was traffic, and submitted, for the record, a letter to the Commission dated October 7, 1998. Commissioners Naggar and Guerriero commended the project. Chairwoman Slaven expressed her desire to continue the discussion of traffic at the hearings, making the public aware of the on-going mitigation measures currently in process and the efforts of the City to deal with traffic problems. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to close the public hearing; to adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0420; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0420; and adopt Resolution No. 98-035 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, public testimony received at the public hearing, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, amended as follows: RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-035 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROV1NG PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0420 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A SENIOR CARE FACILITY CONSISTING OF A 121 UNIT ASSISTED CARE FACILITY BUILDING, A 141 UNIT SENIOR APARTMENT BUILDING, TWO MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 27,700 SQUARE FEET, AN ALZHEIMER'S FACILITY OF 7,200 SQUARE FEET, 69 INDEPENDENT CARE HOUSING UNITS WITH A DETACHED CLUBHOUSE AND POOL (380,859 TOTAL SQUARE FEET) WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 22.62 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOMA LINDA AND PALA ROADS, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. S 950-110-007 AND 950-110-008. Add for Condition No. 10, additional non-monochromatic (not gray or white) color added to trim, as per staff's recommendation for Condition No. 67, add an additional Item e. to the condition, conditioning the project's Certificate of Occupancy to the completion of the Pala Bridge Project for Condition No. 72, additional language be added, specifically addressing the storage of gas cylinders for Condition No. 93, regarding Quimby requirements, to add language to include a 50% credit for the development's park land requirements for on-site amenities provided, per memorandum regarding clarification of Conditions of approval submitted by Community Services, dated October 5, 1998 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice reflected unanimous vote approval. At 7:38 P.M. a short recess was taken, and the meeting was reconvened at 7:46 P.M. 4 Chairwoman Slaven recommended to discuss Agenda Item No. 7 out of order;, there was voiced no objection, Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for Quick Stop Market on Rancho California Road and Lvndie Lane Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission make a public convenience or necessity find in order to sell liquor and clarified that the market currently sells beer and wine. In an effort to eliminate travel time for his customers, Mr. Ibrahim D. Ibrehim, the applicant, stated that he would like to provide alcohol to his customers for their convenience; noted, for security concerns, his hours of operation would be from 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. weekdays and to 11:00 P.M. weekends. With regard to Commissioner Naggar's querying as to where the criteda questionnaire originated (in the staff report), Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that in the past, staff, with the help of the City Attomey, drafted this to help justify the criteda for making a finding. With regard to Commissioner Naggar's referencing the first two questions and responses of the questionnaire, Attorney Cudey advised that the Commission review the criteria in a general geographical sense, rather than subclassification as to race, color, or creed and advised that the questionnaire would be reviewed. For Commissioner Naggar, in regard to querying whether the inclusion of hard liquor would contribute to law enforcement problems, Commissioner Guerdero advised that from a law enforcement standpoint, liquor stores have in other areas contributed to increased crime. Mr. Guerriero questior~ed the rationale for additional alcoholic establishments in light of the School Distdct's on-going efforts to promote on anti"drug and anti-alcohol campaigns as well as those eftotis of law enforcement to combat alcohol-related problems. As to creating a preliferation of alcoholic businesses, it was noted that that while not wanting to depdve any businessman's livelihood, it was the Commission's quest to preserve the publids best interest, as to health, safety, and welfare. Commissioner Naggar advised that due to the dose proximity of the existing uses providing alcoholic accessibility (located east of the major intersection at Rancho California Road and Ynez Road - Albertson's and Sav-On ) and since there were no boundaries or barriers (i.e., hills, rivers, freeways), it was noted that separating this use from other aforementioned existing uses would not be justification in a finding of convenience. In contrast, Commissioner Webster, with respect to boundades, viewed Rancho California Road as a major road and, therefore, viewed this as a barrier which would substantiate as a finding of convenience. in light of the applicant's response to Question No. 7 of the questionnaire (that there are no convenience establishments within a quarter mile of the proposed establishment) would also qualify as a finding of convenience. With regard to Question No. 7 of the questionnaire, Commissioner Soltysiak advised that the question querying if there is a. proliferation of licensed establishments doesn't constitute solely convenience establishments. Mr. Soltysiak commented that since the other criteria is somewhat vague and subjective, in the past when such uses were brought before the Commission, a map was provided noting current existing licensed establishments providing pedinent analysis for establishing whether or not there exists a proliferation of such uses. For Commissioner Soltysiak, Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that staff wasn't currently aware of the number of such licensed establishments existing within a quarter mile of this establishment; clarified that it has been established there is an overconcentration of such existing uses in.the area and most of Riverside County; and clarified that the pdmary issue is deciding whether or not there is a finding of convenience or necessity. With regard to Commissioner Naggar's question. Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified that the Commission's decision is appealable to the City Council; as to further clarification, Attorney Cudey advised that typically ABC views an approval by the City's governing body as establishing no adverse impact on the local environment. Although there might be grounds for disapproval later, he noted that the approval by the City provides a gateway for further process. For Commissioner Soltysiak, Planning Manager advised that this application, for this particular establishment, will most likely not be readdressed by the Commission at a future meeting, due to the fact that Mr. Ibrahim was currently in escrow and that his determination was contingent on the Commission's action this evening. Following lengthy discussion. based on the analysis and findings provided, ChainNoman Slaven reiterated the Commissioners' comments, stating it was the general consensus of the Planning Commission to have made no finding of public convenience or necessity, due to the following criteria: that there was no qualifying unique feature. clarifying that unique usually encompassed an entertainment-type use or special service-type use tha:t the proposed addition of liquor at this location could increase law enforcement problems that there were sensitive uses in the vicinity of the area, such as: churches and preschools that, with regard to the use catering to an under-served population, and any geographical boundary, or barrier separating this use from other licensed establishments, the Commission noted that the use already sells beer and wine; determined that the known, existing licensed establishments provide easily accessible and ample provision to the public it was not the intent of the Commission to promote an overly dense saturation of such uses At this point the hearing went back to the regular order of the Agenda. Approve the twenty-seven foot (27') hicih free-standinci sicin for The Promenade in Temecula {PA98-0370| By way of overheads, Senior Planner Fagan presented the sign elevation and location; noted that the proposed sign is consistent with the design of the mall; for Commissioner Webster noted that although there are other off-site signs, this will be the only primary entry sign, pursuant to Section 111. C 11 (Development Standard, On-Site Signs) of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan; for Commissioner Naggar, commented that this sign far exceeds the size of a housing tract sign; and for Commissioner Soltysiak, advised that the matedal of the sign has been designed to be low- maintenance. Commissioner Webster commended staff on their efforts with the design of a 27' sign versus the allowable 36'. Commissioner Guerdero, echoed by Commissioner Naggar, expressed dissatisfaction with the design, desirous of more provision for visual interest, recommending addition of stucco, bdck or rock. Mr. Tom Gruber of KA, Inc., architecture representing the applicant, noted that the original intent was to keep the design light and airy. For Commissioners Soltysiak and Naggar, Mr. Gruber clarified that the sign is basically a painted metal structure, noting that the letters are internally illuminated at night; and advised that the design could incorporate a stone base. The consensus of the Planning Commission was disapproval of the comer monumentation located at the southeast comer of Winchester and Ynez Roads. Chairwoman Slaven recommended bringing back to the Commission a new revision. Senior Planner Fagan reiterated the Commission's comments, as follows: that the base of the sign be enhanced, and that on the two support structures. additional articulation with stucco application. For Chairwoman Slaven, Planning Manager Ubnoske recommended bringing back to the Commission the e!evations of approved projects and entdes of the Mall to reodent the Commission, to provide a basis for a finding of consistency. Chairwoman Slaven further advised, for visual interest, some softening affect, not solely metal. Review and apl~rove the corner monumentation located at the southwest comer of Winchester and MarClarita Roads; review the three options forthe corner monumentation located at the southeast comer of Winchester and Ynez Roads; and I~revide direction to staff regardin~3 the preferred option for the corner monumentation located at the southeast comer of Winchester and Ynez Roads. {:PA98-0369) By way of color renderings, Senior Planner Fagan presented the options for the comer monumentations. Mr. Steve Schafenacker, representing the applicant, noted for Chairwoman Slaven that Forest Hills will turn this project over for construction to the Power Center Developers after tonight's direction on the design phase; and clarified that the matedal of the sign was painted metal and the base is stone, although incorrectly indicated as block wall in the staff report. Senior Planner Fagan clarified for Commissioner Soltysiak that it was the intent to bdng general option designs to the Commission for input regarding details, such as colore and materials. '7 Chairwoman Slaven recommended more detail with regard to landscaping, and to provide a rendering representing the exact landscape plan. Commissioner Webster recommended the addition of a stone veneer or some other type of material, rather than just metal. In regard to the description of the wall panel, Commissioner Soltysiak recommended clarification in the language, commenting it was too vague. Director of Public Works Parks recommended bringing the site plan back to the Commission to clarify how the monumentation relates to the conidor, assuring the view was not blocked. As to the Developer's time constraints, the applicant clarified that the Design Guidelines had precedence over the monument signs at the comers. It was the consensus of the Commission, after review, to not approve the comer monumentations located at the southwest comer of Winchester and Margarita Roads and at the southeast comer of Winchester and Ynez Roads. Senior Planner Fagan clarified that he was clear of the direction the Commission wanted to go. Chairwoman Slaven advised bringing the project back to the Commission with additional information and detail. Review Plannin{:l Aloplication No. PA-0371 (Development Plan) - DeskIn Guidelines; and approve Planning Application No. PA98-0371 (Development Plan) - Design Guidelines. Senior Planner Fagan presented the Design Guidelines (per agenda material). With regard to Section B, under Site Access and Traffic Flow, specifically drive-through facilities, Senior Planner Fagan clarified, for Commissioner Webster, each Center's distinct components; and further noted that as to the Village Center Overlay, the Specific Plan takes precedence, which applies at this site. With regard to Section C, under Site Parking, Senior Planner Fagan clarified, for Commissioner, Guerriero the rationale for the 90 degree parking, instead of angled-parking; and noted, for Chairwoman Slaven, the 9-foot parking space does allow for double-striping. With regard to Section D, under Site Paving, Director of Public Works Parks clarified asphalt paving for Commissioner Guerdero; as to colored-paving at each entrance, Senior Planner Fagan advised, for Commissioner Soltysiak, that earth tones could be added into the pallet, that language could be added for clarification, as to entdes, further clarifying that this section could be moved to Section H, under Entrances. With regard to Section F, Site Utilities, Chairwoman Slaven commended the Design Guidelines for rendering all utilities underground. With regard to Section H, under Materials and Colors, Senior Planner Fagan clarified, for Chairwoman Slaven, the intent of the guidelines to have the main entrance on the front, facing the street; under Architectural Design and Entrances, Mr. Steve Schafenacker, representing the applicant, recommended for, Commissioner Guerriero, the following language modification must adhere in paragraph one and then the term should for consistency with The Promenade in Temecula and in the second paragraph reflected an element of flexibility the development needed for such uses where deemed appropriate by staff (i.e., a gas station). Planning Manager Ubnoske further clarified that the language can be strengthened for consistency, leaving room for.flexibility where it is warranted. With regard to the Outlot Sign Cdteda Section, Senior Planner Fagan advised, for Commissioner Webster, that permitting four signs was typical, one per side of the building, and consistent with the Specific Plan; dadfled, for Commissioner Guerdero, as to the size of the signs, that the 30% of the length and height of the facade of the building, was consistent with the Specific Plan; and as to neon signs, Mr. Shafenacker assured Chairwoman Slaven that the mall wouldn't be devaluated by obtrusive neon lights, clarifying that the neon-signing could be constructed in a tasteful manner. With regard to the Landscaping Section, Commissioner Webster advised that since the parking lot landscaping requirement was 50 pement of the parking stall when the trees reach maturity, the use of an alternative tree, rather than the Eucalyptus tree would be more effective; Senior Planner Fagan, for Commissioner Soltysiak, clarified the rationale for the landscaping being different in monument areas in order to create distinction, further advised that the language could be clarified to reflect minor entry statements or landscal~ing, instead of the word monument and Mr. Shafenacker clarified that the minor entries would be constructed by the outlot developer. With the aforementioned recommendations, it was the consensus of the Commission to approve Planning Application No. 98-0371(Development Plan)- Design Guidelines. 7. Findine of Public Convenience or Necessity for Stop Quick Market on Rancho California and Lvndie Lane. This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 5. 8. Plannine Application No. PA95-0079 {Tentative Parcel Map No. 282571 This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 2. 9. Plannine Application No. PA97-0420 {Development Plan) This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 2. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that the Recreational Vehicle Bde~ng would be postponed. A. Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified the Commission will be receiving a new initial study in the agenda packets, reflecting the same information but wdtten more concisely with a different format. B. In response to Commissioner Naggar's comments at the September 2, 1998, Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Ubnoske relayed that the rationale for not televising the Planning Commission meeting was primarily a matter of cost and the contract requirements. C. After Agenda Item No. 7, Ms. Ubnoske commented that the applicant stated that he had already obtained a license from ABC and paid $12,000 for it, clarifying that she would further investigate ABC's process. COMMISSIONER REPORTS A. Commissioner Naggar referenced an article from "The Califomian," of September 25, 1998, regarding the crosswalk east of Moraga Road and Margadta Road, addressing the danger involved for children at this unsignalized crosswalk. Director of Public Works Parks suggested that Mr. Naggar wdte his comments in letter-form to the Traffic Commission in order to have the matter addressed, clarifying he would then be notified of the headng when the subject will be heard. The Commission recommended Commissioner Naggar attend that meeting as an informational representative. ADJOURNMENT At 10:02 P.M. Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday, October 21, 1998, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. Marcia Slaven, Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager l0 MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 21, 1998 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 21, 1998 CALL TO ORDER The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in an adjourned regular meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Wednesday, October 21, 1998, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Guerriero, Naggar, Soltysiak, Webster, and Chairwoman Slaven. Absent: None. Also Present: Planning Manager Ubnoske, Senior Planner Fagan, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks, Attorney Cudey, Project Planner Donahoe, Assistant Planner Anders, and Minute Clerk Hansen. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. ADDroYal of A;enda MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 2. Approval of Minutes - September 2, 1998 In addition to omitting his concurrence with Commissioner Webster, Commissioner Soltysiak requested that page 5, section D, be amended to accurately reflect the term bike trails, rather than bike lanes. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Planning Application No. PA98-0353 (Development Plan) Request to design, construct, and operate a 23,098 square foot office/industrial building. RECOMMENDATION It recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve approve the request. By way of overheads, Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff report (of record); noted that although the loading zones are located at the front of the building, staff has worked with the applicant to ensure screening of the area with a six foot landscape buffer, which will equal the screening effect of a solid wall while maintaining a more aesthetically pleasing visual sight; addressed the applicant's request for a 9% FAR (Floor Area Ratio) increase, advising that staff is of the opinion that the conditions of the project warrant the increase; and clarified that page 3 of the staff report (per agenda material) Condition No. 9b, should be corrected to read as Condition No. 6b. For Commissioner Naggar, Assistant Planner Anders clarified that staff is of the opinion that the cdteria in the Development Code was met by this particular project by the standards denoted in both Sections I and 2 (of Development Code 17.08); specifically, first, the actual project's provisions and second the provisions the Developer will offer to the community; and noted that the landscape screening berm wasn't reflected on the renderings due to the desire to not block the building's development and design. With regard to COmmissioner Webster's quenjing as to the denotation checked by aesthetics on page 22 (of the staff report) on the Environment Factors checklist, Senior Planner Fagan clarified that the demarcation was due to the potential light and glare effects, noting that due to the mitigation measures, there will be no significant effect. For Commissioner Webster, with regard to traffic, Assistant Planner Anders advised that this particular project will be consistent with the General Plan. For Chairwoman Slaven, Ms. Anders further clarified the landscape screening of the loading area; defined FAR (Floor Area Ratio) as the percentage of total square footage of the building; noted the Development Code allows for flexibility; and advised that the requested 9% increase is relatively nominal. Mr. Scott Buckles, representing the applicant, clarified the justifiable rationale for the request for the FAR increase, as follows: 1) an additional 10-15 employees are being added to their staff (viewed as an asset to the community), warranting the need for the additional square feet; 2) this padicular project's enhanced development and building articulation which meets the criteda requirement; reviewed, in detail, the project site plan; noted, for Commissioner Soltysiak, that the tinted concrete would be sealed; and clarified, for Commissioner Webster, the color of the roll-up doors will be grey. Director of Public Works Parks addressed the planned measure that would alleviate traffic on Winchester Road, as follows: creating a raised landscaped median on Winchester Road, from Jefferson Avenue to Enterprise Circle West, with a signal at Enterprise Circle West; Murrieta's proposed widening of Jefferson Avenue to four lanes throughout their city; the relief provision of the Rancho California Road Interchange; noted that the City Council has advised moving the goal for the completion of the Ovedand Bddge Project to October of 1999; and informed the Commission of the City of Temecula's current deliberations with the City of Murdeta to work on traffic and circulation solutions as a joint venture, noting that there is a representative from the City of Muftieta in the City's traffic circulation meetings. Director of Public Works Parks advised that the main concem of staff with this particular project, with regard to traffic and circulation was the originally proposed two driveways, with entrance onto Winchester Road; and clarified that this has been revised to maintain one driveway. Although commending the project, Commissioner Naggar noted that the site, as proposed, has utilized numerous allowances and exceptions, such as: a) zero foot lot line, b) elimination of parking spaces, per credit for provision of bicycle spaces c) a front loading area, to be screened by a landscaping plan not represented for visual review on the site plan, and d) a FAR increase, which doesn't appear to meet the qualifying cdteda in the Development Code 17.08, Sections 1 and 2, as worded. (*For further comments on this issue, see Commission Reports, page 6, section B.) Planning Manager Ubnoske clarified, for the Commission, the FAR requirements; noted that the .40 FAR requirement is a target, with allowances for the flexibility that facilitates meeting the needs of the particular project; reiterated that the request for the FAR increase on this project was a minor exception; and advised that staff will investigate the language in the Code concerning qualifying criteda warranting a FAR increase. Commissioners Guerriero and Soltysiak commended the project. Commissioner Webster recommended modifying the landscape plan, as follows; tha~ the two Queen Palms (one on the east portion of the project, one on the west) be replaced with an evergreen-type tree that the three Bottle Trees (in the rear triangular comer of the project) be replaced with Camphor Trees Mr. Vince Didonab, landscape architect, representing the applicant, was agreeable to the modifications. Chairwoman Slaven expressed support of the project. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public headng; adopt the Negative Declaration for Planning Application NO. PA98-0353; adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0353; and adopt Resolution No. 98-036 recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0353 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, amended as follows: RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-036 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0353 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A 23,098 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE BUILDING, AND TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 9% FOR A TOTAL OF 49% PURSUANT TO SECTION 17.080.050 OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING A 1.05 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF WINCHESTER ROAD, NORTHWEST OF BOSTIK COURT, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-370-006. Amend the landscape plan, per aforementioned modifications The motion was seconded by Commissioner Soltysiak and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the exception of Commissioner Naggar who voted n_go. 4. Planning Al~plication NO. PA98-0350 {Conditional Use Permit) Request to construct and operate a 53,541 square foot, two-story Chevrolet auto dealership and a 3,126 square foot Cadillac/Oldsmobile auto dealership with showrooms, offices, parts inventory, 50- bay service building, paint booths and wash bays. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning Commission approve the request. Project Planner Donahoe presented the staff report, highlighting site design, architecture, access and circulation, any landscaping, noting that this project utilized the new standards for automobile, motorcycle, and truck dealerships; advised that the applicant is relocating and expanding its facilities; noted that the applicant is requesting an exemption from the Development Code, regarding the requirement for bicycle and motorcycle parking spaces due to the lack of need for this particular use (per agenda material, Attachment 3); noted that such an exemption would be is in accordance with Section 17.24.040. F4 of the Development Code; and clarified, for Commissioner Naggar, in regard to traffic concerns, that the access from Solana Way to the service booth area has adequate provision, so as not to cause any stacking. Director of Public Works Parks dadfled, for Commissioner Webster, the center alignment of the ddveway entrance on Solana Way. Project Planner Don~hoe noted, for Chairwoman Slaven, that although circulation will be provided around the entire site, as proposed, the applicant did not propose a path, road or ddve connecting this dealership to adjoining dealerships, alleviating the use of the main road, for security reasons. Mr. Terry Gilmore, representing the applicant, commented, for Commissioner Webster, on the rationale for placing the circular display on the northeast comer of the site was to utilize both points of the property for display purposes; noted that the light standards will be white; and clarified the location of the inner chain-linked fence; and referenced, for Commissioner Guerriere, the type of paint booths, giving assurance there would be no unmitigated environmental hazards. For Chairwoman Slaven, Mr. Gilmore presented a detailed overview of the location and security purpose of the chain-linked fence and cJarified access to the site from Solaria Way. Mr. Jerry Whit~eld, architect representing the applicant, reviewed the matedal specifications for the different canopy-types at the various locations on the project. Addressing Commissioner Guer~ero's concam, regarding dangerous speed on the private roadway on the site plan, Director of Public Works Parks advised that although the speed in that area could be a relevant issue, it was not recommended conditioning this project to the installation of speed undulations due to the read being a pdvate road. Mr. Gilmore, in response to Mr. Park's request, stated that there would be no problem granting the Police Department access to cite speed violators on the private roadway. Planning Manager Ubnoske dadfled that staff had directed the applicant as to the necessity of access to the private road for the purpose of relieving traffic on Ynez Road. Commissioner Guen'iero concurred with Chairwoman Slaven's recommendation to replace the chain-linked fence with a wrought iron fence on the project. Mr. Gilmore stated that he would comply with the modification. MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to close the public hearing; adopt Resolution No. 98-037, approving Planning Application No. PA98-0350 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attaches Conditions of Approval, as follows: RESOLUTION NO. PC 98-036 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0350 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 47,970 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY DEALERSHIP AND A 3,126 SQUARE FOOT DEALERSHIP, WITH SHOWROOMS, OFFICES, PARTS INVENTORY, 50-BAY SERVICE CENTER WITH PAINT BOOTHS AND WASH BAYS ON 8.42 ACRES; AND (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) TO PERMIT THE OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF YNEZ ROAD AND SOLANA WAY AND KNOWN AS LOT 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 28809 Modify the chain-linked fence be replaced with a rod iron fence the applicant give permission to the Temecula Police Department to write infractions and any other citations so deemed necessary on the private road PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT A. Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the flag salute was going to be added to the Planning Commission Meetings beginning November4, 1998. B. For Commissioner Guerdero, Ms. Ubnoske advised that the Fire Department Marshall will be addressing the Commission, regarding disclosure of hazardous materials at an upcoming Planning Commission Meeting. C. Ms. Ubnoske addressed, for Chairwoman Slaven, the Chevron station at the comer of Jefferson Avenue and Rancho California Road, advising that staff will be addressing the softening of the canopy color, noting that although this site is not consistent with conditions placed on other projects, staff viewed the revision as an improvement, over the existing worsened licensed condition, and that the applicant could maintain the existing condition with his current license; dadfled that any Directors Hearing Item,. such as this one, could be pushed forward to the Planning Commission Meeting for approval at their request, via a phone cell. D. Ms. Ubnoske noted, for informational purposes, that the Convenience Store on Rancho Califomia Road which was denied a liquor license is appealing that decision, and that it will be heard at the November 10, 1998, City Council Meeting. Department has adopted new standards and that copies are currently available; advised, due to noted Commission concern, that the sidewalk at Margadta Park will be addressed at the E. Director of Public Works Parks noted for the Coremission that the Public Works Public Safety/Traffic Commission Meeting November 12, 1998; noted that he would address, for Commissioner Soltysiak, the intersection at Margadta Road and De Portola Road, at the Lucky's Shopping Center, specifically, the lack of raised medians demaroating left turns in and out. COMMISSION REPORTS A. Planning Manager Ubnoske advised, for Chairwoman Slaven, the cdteria in the Development Code for FAR (Floor Area Ratio) is designed for flexibility and a requested increase in FAR is based on incentives. Ms. Slaven commented that the criteda warranting an increase should be based more on the project as an entity in itself, rather that the developer. B. Commissioner Naggar further clarified his conflict with the request for a FAR (Floor Area Ratio) increase (*per Item 3 of the Agenda), as follows: that there is no clear-cut understanding of the cdteda (as worded in the Code) warranting an increase, and that based on the fact there is a known existing traffic problem, he, therefore, could find no justification for granting approval for the requested FAR increase without creating a worsened condition; and recommended that the criteda for granting a FAR increase be clarified. Ms. Ubnoske further dadfled that the Code allows for a maximum of 1.0, and that this particular project was at .49, which is substantially lower than the maximum allowable. C. Ms. Ubnoske suggested scheduling a traffic workshop with the Planning Commission, discussing the current road improvement plans, in order to make the Commission aware of what is upcoming with the City, concerning traffic. ADJOURNMENT At 7:54 P.M. Chairwoman Slaven formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday. November 4. 1998, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula. Marcia Slaven, Chairwoman Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager ITEM #3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0413 (Development Plan) Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT a Negative Declaration with a Finding of DeMinimus Impact for Planning Application No. PA98-0413; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0413; and ADOPT Resolution No. 98- approving Planning Application No. PA98-0413 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Zevo 35 REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Reeves PROPOSAL: The design, construction and operation of a moving storage, and warehousing business with an associated 14,859 square foot building. LOCATION: The south side of Zevo Drive, approximately 1250 feet west of the intersection of Zevo Drive and Diaz Road. EXISTING ZONING: LI (Light Industrial) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: PI (Public Institutional) LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) LI (Light Industrial) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: BP (Business Park) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant R:\STAFFRFr\413pa98pc.doc SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Existing Rancho California Water District Complex Vacant Vacant Vacant PROJECTSTATISTICS Total Area: Total Area: Total Site Area: Building Footprint: Landscape Area: Paved Area: 2.11 acres (gross) 1.33 acres (net) 91,912 square feet (2.11acres) 14,859 square feet 18,557 square feet 58,496 square feet 16% 20% 64% Total Floor Area: Floor Area Ratio: 14,859 square feet 0.16 Parking Required: Office - 1,980 sq. ft.: 7 Vehicles Warehousincl - 12,879 sq. ft.: 13 Vehicles Total - 14,859 sq. ft.: 20 Vehicles, 1 Bicycle Parking Provided: Standard Spaces: Handicapped Spaces: BicVcles Total Parking Provided: 22 1 3 23 Building Height: Thirty-one feet, six inches (31' 6") BACKGROUND This project applicant approached the City in August of 1998 requesting that the project be processed under the City's Fast Track Program. A pre-application meeting was held on September 17, 1998 with a formal application submitted on October 2, 1998. At the pre-application meeting, a Fast Track schedule was developed which projected that this project would be brought before the Planning Commission at this meeting (December2, 1998). A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on October 20, 1998, with staff providing written comments on October 22, 1998. The project was deemed complete on November 10, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of the design, construction and operation of a moving, storage, and warehousing business with an associated 14,859 square foot building on a 2.11 acre site with associated improvements, such as hardscape, parking, a paved truck parking area, landscaping and drive aisles. Landscape improvements include parking lot landscape fingers, perimeter planter areas, and streetscape plantings. The site also includes a 12,080 square area to be set aside for potential future expansion of the building. This area is to be irrigated and hydroseeded in the interim. The site currently is adequate in size to provide for the additional building area in terms of R:\STAFFRPT\413pa98pC.doc 2 the Development Codes requirements for floor area ratio (FAR), parking and landscaping. Any future development proposals; however, would require separate approval. As described, this project will not involve any manufacture, processing or storage of hazardous materials. ANALYSIS Site Desion The project is sited on an irregular-shaped parcel with the building located on the southern property line in the southeast corner of the site. Parking is provided on either side of the drive aisle, which runs through the center of the project. Loading areas are located on the northern side of the building. Along the northern portion of the site, there is a large paved area, which is designed to provide areas for the parking of large trucks. An employee outdoor lunch area has been located at the southern end of the site, off the southwest comer of the building. The design of the site is compatible with existing development in the area. The building has been sited along the southern portion of the parcel due to the presence of a fault at the northern property line. The building has been placed approximately 175 feet from the fault line which complies with State requirements which stipulate that all inhabited buildings or buildings intended for human occupancy be set back a minimum of 50 feet from a fault line. Conditions of Approval, which require the project to meet all Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements relative to seismic standards, have been included. Access, Traffic and Circulation The project takes access from a single driveway off Zevo Drive. There is parking and vehicular circulation along a central drive aisle. Truck traffic will utilize this main drive aisle and access loading docks on the northern side of the building. The site also has a truck turn around and a backing area in front of the loading docks, which provides more than adequate room for the maneuvering and backing movements of trucks. Customers and employees will utilize the parking along both sides of the drive aisle. Emergency vehicles have access to all portions of the building from the drive aisle and turn around along the northern portion of the site. Architecture The building will be tilt-up concrete with smooth, painted panels and painted accent colors. The office entry is highlighted with the use of windows, variation in building height along the front of the building, and decorative paving. The applicant is also adding visual interest with the use of painted reveals and varying paint colors. These features provide a certain amount of interest and to some extent help to break up the mass of the building walls. The placement of trees and shrubs within the landscape planters around the perimeter of the site on two sides, complement the building and help break up the building's massing. Because the building's south elevation is on the property line there will be no landscaping to help soften this elevation. It is anticipated that the future development of the parcel to the south will ultimately screen this elevation from the adjacent property. In addition, this elevation faces the west and as a consequence is not visible from Diaz and the freeway. R:\STAFFRPT\413pa98pC.dOC 3 Landscapine Twenty percent (20%) of the site has been landscaped which is consistent with the 20% minimum landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial) zone. The project provides a minimum seven- foot (7') wide perimeter landscaping planter around approximately 75% of the site. Ths planter along the northern perimeter is ten feet (10') wide. Along Zevo Drive, a 25-foot wide planter is being provided along the front of the site. The applicant proposes to utilize Liquid Amber trees along the front of the site as street trees and Eucalyptus trees along the perimeter and in the parking area. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is LI (Light Industrial). Existing zoning for the site is LI (Light Industrial). 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, meets all minimum standards of and is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code and the Design Guidelines. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated. In addition, the site has previously been graded/disturbed, improvements have been installed and as a consequence the project will not impact endangered, threatened or rare species, or the site will not serve as a migration corridor. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Negative Declaration for PA 98-0413 be adopted for this project and a Finding of DeMinimus impact be made. SUMMARWCONCLUSIONS The project is the design, construction and operation of a moving, storage, and warehousing business with a 14,859 square foot building on a 2.11 acre site. 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. 3. 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 R:\STAFFP, PT\413pag8pC.dOC 4 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 6 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Initial Study- Blue Page 15 Mitigation Monitoring Program- BlUe Page 16 Exhibits - Blue Page 17 B. C D. E. F. G. H. I. Vicinity Map General Plan Map Zoning Map Site Plan Landscape Plan Elevations Color Elevations (not included) Colors and Materials Board (not included) Floor Plan R:\STAFFRFI'X413pa98pc.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- R:\STAFFRPT\413pa98pc.doc 6 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0413 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A MOVING, STORAGE AND WAREHOUSING BUSINESS WITH A 14,859 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 2.11 ACRES, LOCATED ON ZEVO DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 1,250 FEET WEST OF DIAZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-936-035. WHEREAS, Zevo 35 (Michael Reeves) filed Planning Application No. PA98-0413 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0413 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0413 on December 2, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desidng to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA98-0413; 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. PA98-0413 makes the following findings; to wit: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. 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 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. R:\STAFFRPT\413pa98pc.doc 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. PA98-0413 to construct and operate a moving, storage and warehousing business with a 14,859 square foot building, associated parking and landscaping on a parcel containing 2.11 gross acres, located approximately 1,250 feet west Diaz Road and known as a Assessor's Parcel No. 909-936-035 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of December, 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 2nd day of December, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPTX413pa98pc.doc 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPTX413pa98pc.doc 9 Attachment- A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0413 (Development Plan) - Fast Track Project Description: The design, construction and operation of a moving, storage and warehousing business with a 14,859 square foot building with associated parking and landscaping on an 2.11 acre site. Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-936-035 Approval Date: December 2, 1998 Expiration Date: December 2, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Requirements The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, conceming the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. 3. 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 R:\STAFFRPT\413pa98pc.dOC pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "D" (Site Plan), contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager and the Temecula Development Code. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit "F" and Exhibit "G" (color elevations), or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit "H", or as amended by these conditions (color and material board). Materials Concrete (main body of bldg.) Concrete (vertical accent stripes) Concrete (base of bldg.) Accent Reveals Metal (roll-up doors) Glazing (Windows) Aluminum Storefront (Anodized Aluminum) Colors Silver Cloud (Frazee 5460W) Highland Gray (Frazee 5404D) Ash (Frazee 5461W) Teal (Frazee 4944D) Ash (Frazee 5461W) Solar Gray Dark Bronze Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits = The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 12. R:\STAFFRFI'~413pa98pc.doc Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 10. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid. 11. The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, G", (Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Elevations, Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of approval that will be provided by 13. the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and submit five (5) full size copies and two (2) 8" X 1 O" glossy photographic color prints of approved Exhibit "G" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F", the colored architectural elevations to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be readable on the photographic prints. 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. C= Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 14. An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planing Manager, if signage is proposed. 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 propedy constructed and in good working order. 18. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed re~ectodzed sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: R:\STAFFRPT\413pa98pc.doc 12 19. 20. "Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense, Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final cedificate 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. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 21. The applicant shall comply with Conditions of Approval as set forth in the Buitding and Safety Department's transmittal dated November 13, 1998, a copy of which is attached. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 22. The applicant shall comply with Conditions of Approval as set forth in the Public Works Departmenrs transmittal dated November 17, 1998, a copy of which is attached. FIRE DEPARTMENT 23. The applicant shall comply with Conditions of Approval as set forth in the Fire Department's transmittal dated November 12, 1998, a copy of which is attached. OTHER AGENCIES 24. The applicant shall comply with all applicable or appropriate recommendations set forth in Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District transmittal dated October 19, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 25. The applicant shall comply with all applicable or appropriate recommendations set forth in Riverside County Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated October 15, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 26. The applicant shall comply with all applicable or appropriate recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District transmittal dated October 14, 1998, a copy of which is aftached. R:\STAFFP, Fr\413pa98pc .doc 13 27. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations as set forth in the UCR-Eastern Information Center transmittal dated October 12, 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 R:\STAFFRPT\413pa98pc.doc 14 CITY OF TEMECULA MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: John De Gange, Project Planner Mark Berg, Plans Examiner November 13, 1998 PA98-04 13 Mike Reeves Moving and Storage Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Cedes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. Submit at time of plan review, 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. 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. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B/S-1. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 980413bs 11/13/98 mb 7. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1~)8) 8. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building. 9. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. 10. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement. 11. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 12. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 13. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. 14. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 15. Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 16. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer engineer are required for plan review submittal. 17. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 18. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 19. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls require separate approvals and permits. 980413bs 11/13/9g mb TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM John De Gange, Project Planner n~;vie Bostre-Le,9Assistant Engineer ember 17, I 98 Conditions of Approval for Zevo 35 (PA98-0413) Parcel 35 of Parcel Map No. 28471-1 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 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 A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat 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. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. All 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 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. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. A 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 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer, The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: · San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board · Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District · Planning Department · Department of Public Works The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 15. 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 cdteria shall be observed: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveway shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A. c. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 19. 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 20. All public improvements, shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works. 21. 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. City of Temecula (909) 694-6439 F~ (909) 694-6478 November 12, 1998 PA 98-0413 Fire Prevention 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. 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 for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 1850 GPM for a total fire flow of 3350 GPM with a 3 hour duration. 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 and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart and shall be located no more than 210 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 GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) P:\PLANNING\COADEVPL\1998\PA98-0413 Fire Conditions of Approval.doc Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15) Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than. thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (UFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15) Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (UFC 902.2.2.4) Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) 10. 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) 11. 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) 12. 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) 13. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use , the developer shall install an fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. (UFC Article 10) 14. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised by the alarm system. (UFC 902.4) 15. 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 P:\PLANNING\COADEVPL\1998\PA98-0413 Fire Conditions of Approval.doc 16. entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (UFC 902.4) Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, building final or occupancy, buildings housing high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions of Uniform Fire Code Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. The storage of high-piled combustible stock may require structural design considerations or modifications to the building. Fire protection and life safety features may include some or all of the following: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm .systems, smoke vents, draft curtains, Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. (UFC Article 81) P:\PLANNING\COADEVPL\1998\PA98-0413 Fire Conditions of Approval.doc DAVID P. ZAPPE Gcacral Manager-Chief Engincct RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909/275-1200 909/788-9965 FAX 511g0.1 City of Temecula Plannin De rtment Pest 903S Temecula. California 92589-9033 A.e. on: .Ton,,, Ladies e.d Genf,e .e.: Re: PP7 9 g> - z,, 13 The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not lan check ~ land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard repOrts for sutc~cases. Dist~ct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to 'terns of spedtic roterest to the District includin District Master Draina · Plan facilities other ional flood con%rol and draina e facilities which could be consi~gered a logical composesPot extension of a masterr~p an stem. and District Area ~rainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nsa~usre is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard public heath and safety or any other such ssue: V/ This prg. ject would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of ' regional ~nterest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will acce t ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District stan~a~rds and District plan check and inspection will be required for District accepfance. Plan check inspection and administrative fees will be required. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a I ical extension of the adopted Master Dreinage Plan. The District woLd°c'J consider accepting ownership of such tac~lffies on wntten request of the City. Facilities must be constrocted to District standards and D~strict plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspecfion and administrative fees will be required. check or money order onl to ~e Flood Control District or City pdor to issu~c~uTI of building or grading permits, whichever comes ~fr~t. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project ma uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Con~olre~]oard. Clearance for grading. recordafion, or other final approval should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this pre'ect involves a Federal Emergent'/Management Agency (FEMA mapped flood plain then the C' should require ~e applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and o~ter reformation r_e~_uired to m~e~ FEMA occupancy. --,,, If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to obtain a Section 160111603 Agreement from the Ca~i~mia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~ater Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these a encies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quali Cer~cation may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of ~e Corps 404 permit. OCT 2 1998 Very truly yours, Senior Civil Engineer Date: TO: FROM: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: October 15, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLOT PLAN NO. PA98-0413 The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA98-0413 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022. c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (909) 694-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance #617.4. · Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance #615.3. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #651.2). · Waste reduction management. 3. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA). CH:dr 955-8980 NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance. Doug Thompson 40 ~7 Op,I' ~. 0 ;~98 stand3b.doc lla r Csaba F. Ko Lisa D, Herman Doug Kulberg Scott A, Mc|ntyre Jeffrey L. Minkler George ~L Woods John F, Hennigsr Philllp L. Forbes Kenneth C. Dealy C. Michael Cower{ October 14, 1998 John DeGange, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AND SEWER AVAILABILITY PARCEL NO. 35 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 28471-1 APN 909-360-035 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0413 Dear Mr. DeGange: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water and sewer service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If-fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights. if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager 98/SB:mC253/F012-T5/FCF c: Laurie Willjams, Engineering Services Supervisor OCT 2 5 CALIFORNIA IIISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside, CA 92521-0418 Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (~09) 787-5409 October 12, 1998 John De Gange City of Temecula Planning Department P. O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Case No.: Applicant: PA98-0413 Michael Reeves Dear Mr. De Gange: Please fred enclosed our comments for the project transmittal as requested by the Planning Department. If you have any questions, please contact the Eastern Information Center at (909) 787-5745. PA 98-0413/APN909-936-035 ........................... Oct. 20, 1998 Sincerely, Martha Smith Information Officer Enclosure(s) OCT 15 1998 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM Eaetern Informetlon Center Department of Anthropology University of California Riversi0e, CA 92521-0418 Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 CULTURAI, RESOURCE REVIEW DATE: RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation: Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended. Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase I study is recommended. A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # ) identified one or more cultural resources. The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, due to the nature of the project or prior data recovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not recommended. Phase I cultural resource study (MF # 35 ~ ) identified no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. __ There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the rinds and makes recommendations. Due to the archaeological sensitivity o f the area, earthmoving during construction should be monitored by a professional archaeologist. The submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a), December 1989. Phase i Phase 11 Phase Ill Phase IV Records search and field survey Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant" sites.] Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.] Monitor earthmoving activities COMMENTS: If you have any questions, please contact us. Eastern Information Center ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:x, STAFFRPT\413pa98pc.doc 15 Project Title Lead Agency Name and Address Contact Person and Phone Number Project Location Project Sponsor's Name and Address General Plan Designation Zoning Description of Project Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Other public agencies whose approval is required City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Planning Application No. PA98-0413 (Development Plan - Fast Track) City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 (909) 694-6400 South side of Zevo Drive, approximately 1250 feet west of the intersection of Zevo Drive and Diaz Road Zevo 35, Michael Reeves, 674 Via De La Valle #207, Solana Beach, CA 92075 Business Park (BP) Light Industrial (LI) The design, construction and operation of a Moving, Storage, and Warehousing Business with an associated 14,560 square foot building. The project site is within a partially developed business park. It is surrounded on the north and east with developed light industrial uses. Both the south and west properties adjacent to the site are currently vacant. 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. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413pa98.ies.dOC 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 Planning Population and Housing X Geologic Problems X Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation X Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources X Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance None Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL'IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. November 12, 1998 Signature Date John De Gange Printed Name _City of Temecula for ~\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413pa98.ies .doc 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: 1.a. 1.b. 1,c. 1.d. Issues and Supporting Infom~ation Sources Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact lnco~orated Impact No Impact X X x X X Comments: 1.b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park (BP). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The project site has been previously graded and services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minodty community). The project site is vacant. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. Furthermore, the site is an industrially zoned property that does not allow residential developments. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: 2.8. Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Signilicant Impact Incorporated Impact issues and Supporting information Sources Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? (Source 1, Page 2-23) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? 2.c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X (Source 1. Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) No Impact X X Comments: 2.a. The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is an industrial building that is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. Since the project is consistent with the City's R:\CEQA\413pa98.ies.doc General Plan, and does not exceed the floor area ratio for Business Park, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth that will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Business Park. The project will not likely cause people to relocate to or within Temecuta, but will serve the needs of existing residents. Therefore, the project will not induce substantial growth in the area, land no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.c. The project will not displace any type of housing. The project site is vacant industrially zoned property; therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? 3.a. 3.b. 3.c. 3.d. 3.e. 3.f. 3.g. 3.h. 3.i. Issues and Suppo,ting information Sources Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6; Source 5) Seismic ground shaking? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6; Source 5) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Pg. 7-6; Source 5) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? Landslides or mudflows? Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Pg. 68; Source 5) Expansive soils? Unique geologic or physical features? Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Impact Incorporated impact Impact X X X X X X X X X Comments: 3,a The project may have a potentially significant impact on people involving fault rapture as the project is located in Southem California, an area that is seismically active. A fault runs along the project's eastam property line. In addition the project site lies completely within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. A Geotechnical Report addressing Tentative Pamel Maps 24085, 24086, 21029.21382 and 21383, prepared by Schaefer Dixon dated August 15, 1989 identities the location of the fault and establishes mitigation for impacts associated with this fault. Pursuant to State Law the project will be required locate any structures inhabited or occupied by humans 50 feet from any fault. The project will be required through conditions of approval to locate all structures a minimum of 50 feet from any faults in the vicinity of the site. Any potentially significant impacts will also be mitigated through building construction, which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the submission a soils report will also be required. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will be utilized in the development of this site, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant related to fault rapture. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.b The project may have a potentially significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking as the project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. The project is associated with a fault, which runs along the project's eastern property line. The site is also located in an Alquist-Pdolo Special Studies Zone. A Geotechnical Report addressing Tentative Parcel Maps 24085, 24086, 21029, 21382 and 21383, prepared by Schaefer Dixon dated August 15, 1989 identifies the location of the fault and the special studies zone associated with the fault. The report also establishes mitigation for impacts associated with the faults and any of the faults associated fault zones. To minimize the impacts associated to ground R:\CEQA\413pa98.ies.doc 3.c,g,h 3.d 3.e 3.f 3.i. shaking, in compliance with State Law, mitigation measures and conditions will be established requiring the project to locate all structures inhabited or occupied by humans 50 feet from any fault. Any potentially significant impacts will also be mitigated through building construction, which is consistent with Uniform Building Cede standards. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the submission a soils report will also be required. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will be utilized in the development of this site, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant retated to ground shaking. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project may have a potentially significant impact in that it may expose people to ground failu~'e associated with liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. The project is located in a liquefacbon zone, in an area of potential subsidence and in an area of expansive soils. In order to mitigate any potentially significant impacts associated with liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils the project will be conditioned to provide a detailed soils report prior to the issuance of grading pe~its. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will be utilized in the development of this site, which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from ground failure, subsidence and expansive soils. In addition, any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, which is consistent with Uniform Building Code (UBC) standards. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 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 impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography, grading or fill. The site has been previously graded and the project does not propose significant grading beyond that which has already occurred. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur dudng 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 fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. A less than significant impact with respect to erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions as a result of grading operations is anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA%413pa98.ies.doc 4, WATER. Would the proposal result in: 4.a. 4.b. 4,c. ' 4.d. 4.e. 4.f, 4.g. 4.h. 4.i. issues and Supporting InformaUon Sources Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( Source 1, Figure 7-3, Pg. 7-10, and Figure 7-4, Pg. 7-12; Source 4) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water Movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater. Otherwise available for public water supplies? (Source 2 Pg. 263) Potentially Potanti=lly Significant Lass Than Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated Impact Impacl X X X X X X X X X Comments: The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape, parking, and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potentjal impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff, which is created. Afler mitjgation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.b. The project could have a significant impact to people or property relative to water related hazards such as flooding since a small portion of the project site is located within Zone AE of the Murrieta Creek floodplain (areas within the 100-year floodplain) as identified by Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 060742-0005-B (November 20, 1996). The Flood Insurance Rate Map provides approximate flood plain limits and 100-year flood plain elevations to which buildings must be elevated. To mitigate these potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance the project will be conditioned to provide a detailed hydrology study and grading plans, and receive City approval of storm drain improvement plans to ensure that the on-site structures will be floodproofed and that tributary storm flows around the site will be conveyed to an acceptable outlet in accordance with the approved hydrology study prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The project will not be permitted to increase flows or divert flows to impact any adjacent properties. It may also be necessary to install storm drain facilities or other improvements along Temecula Lane and through the site to protect the project and convey storm flows to an adequate outlet. The site is also located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate service provision as the City develops. After mitigation measures are implemented the impacts associated with this project with respect to the threat of flooding are considered to be insignificant. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413paeS.ies.doc ,i, 4.c. The project may have a potentially signiticant effect on discharges into surface waters and alterafion 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 tiled 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 signiticant. No signiticant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.d,e The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface water in any water body or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable grouqd will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying harriscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage will be incremental but will not be considered significant. No signiticant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.f,g,hThe project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality of ground waters and alteration in the direction of the flow of groundwater, 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. The project will not result in a substantjal reduction in the amount of groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Ran, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project and is provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 5.a. 5.b. 5.c. 5.d. issues and Supl~orting Information Sources Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source 3, Pgs. 6-10 and 6-11, Table 6-2) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? Create objectionable odors? Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated impact impact X X X X Comments: The project will not violate any air quality standards or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation and consequently have a less than significant impact. The project consists of the construction and operation of a moving, storage and warehousing business within a 14,560 square foot building. This is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact 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). The project will have a less than significant impact with respect to air quality standards. 5.b. The project may temporarily expose sensitive receptors to pollutants during grading and construction. There are no significant pollutants in proximity to the project nor is it anticipated that the project will generate pollutants. Therefore the project will have a less than signiticant impact on sensitive receptors with respect to exposure to poIMants. 5.c. The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in ~limate, The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any signiticant impacts on the environment in this area, No signiticant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.d. The project may create objectionable odors during the construction phase of the project. However, these impacts will be of short duration and will be less than signiticant, \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413pa98 .ies .doc 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: 6.a. 6.b. 6.c. 6.d. 6.e. 6.f. 6.g. issues and Supporting information Sources Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses)? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (Source 4, Table 17.24(a), Pg. 17-24-9) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Source 4, Chapter 17.24, Pg. 12) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No Impact incorporated impact Impact X 'X X X X X X The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Diaz Road and Zevo Drive. The applicant will be required to pay development impact fees, to mitigate their incremental effect on traffic to address the future need for traffic signals and public facilities. The projects overall affect and its mitigation contributions give the project less than a significant impact. 6.b. The project will result in less than significant impact with respect to 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. As a result there will be a less than significant impact as a result of this project. 6.c. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.d. The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site because its design is in compliance with the City of Temecula Development Code parking requirements. As a result, off-site parking will not be impacted. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 6.e. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No impact is anticipated as a result of this project, 6.fi The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The proposed development encourages the utilization of alternative modes of transportation in its design by including spaces for motorcycles and bicycles. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.9. The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413pa98.ieS.dOC 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal result in impacts to: 7.a, Issues and Supporting Information Sources Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (Source 1, Pg. 5-15, Figure 5-3) 7.b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (Source X 1, Pg. 5-15, Figure 5-3) 7.c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest. X coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, Figure 5-3) 7.d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X (Source 1,Figure 5-3) 7.e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant UnlessMitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X Comments: 7.a. The project will a potentially significant impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. However, the project site has been previously graded and there are currently no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. Because the project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area, Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. After mitigation measures are included, no 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, there will be no impacts as a result of this project. 7.c. The project will not result in an impact to IocaIly designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b. There will be no impacts as a result of this project. 7.d. The project will not result in an impact to a wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site or within proximity to the site therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e, The project will not result in an impact any known wildlife dispersal or migration corddora. The project site is a vacant lot within the developed community and does not serve as pan of a migration corridor, There will be no impacts as a result of this project, 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 8.a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 8.b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 8.c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Comments: \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413pa98.ies.doc Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact X No Impact X X 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 resoumes in a wasteful and inefficient manner. There will be an increase in the rate of use of natural resource dudng construction (construction mate. dais, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber). The depletion of these nonrenewable resource(s) and the subsequent depletion of the non- renewable natural resources is minimal. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as less than significant. 8.c. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known minerel resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents ofthe 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. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact inconporated Impact 9,8. Issues and Supporting Information Sources A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? 9.b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan X or emergency evacuation plan? 9.c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard? 9.d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X hazards? '9.e. Increase fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, X grass, or trees? No Impact X Comments: 9.a. The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. Large quantities of these types of substances will not be associated with this use. The Department of Environmental Health and the Fire Department have reviewed the project and the applicant must receive their clearance prior to any plan check submittal. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area, which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.c. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA\413pa98.ies.doc 9.e. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with fiammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is a commemial restaurant in an area that has been graded with existing development to the south and north. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Mitigation S~gndicant Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated impact 10.a. Increase in existing noise levels? X I10.b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X No Impacl Comments: lO.a. The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to or less than the existing industrial uses in the immediate area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term. 10.b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels dudng the developmentJconstruction phase (short ran). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet, which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This soume of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 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: Issues and Supporting information Sources 11 .a. Fire protection? 11 .b. Police protection? 11 .c. Schools? 11 .d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 11 .e. Other governmental services? Comments: 11.a,b 11.c, Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X X X X X 11.d. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. This project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not have an 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, therefore, will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. The 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. \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413pa98.ies.doc 11 .e. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemmental services. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 12.a. 12.b 12.c 12.d. 12.e 12.f. 12.g. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS: Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: issues and Supporting Information Sources 12.a. Power or natural gas? 12.b. Communications systems? 12.c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? 12,d. Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 2. Pg. 39-40) 12.e. Storm water drainage? 12.f. Solid waste disposal? 12.g. Local or regional water supplies? Potentiaily Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Mitigation Signihcant Impact Incorporated Impac~ X NO Impact X X !X X X X Comments: The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)" No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. The FEIR states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)? Since the project is consistent with the Citys 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. 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. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterafions to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Sourca Reduction and Recycling Programs. which are implemented by the City, No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project, The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413pa98.ies.doc t3. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 13.a. 13.b. 13.c. issues and Supporting Information Sources Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic affect? Create light or glare? Potentially Potenti~ly Significant Less Than Significant UnlessMitigation Significant Impact Incorporated impact X 'X No Comments: 13.a. The project will not have an impact on a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts am anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b. The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The site is in an area of existing industrial uses. The design review process of the proposed development has mitigated the potential for significant visual impacts to the adjacent developments through compliance with the City's Design Guidelines for industrial development and the use of materials, colors, and landscaping that are compatible neighboring development. A less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. The project could have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in additional lightJglare, as do all developments of this nature. Because all light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observato~ the project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). Therefore, after mitigation no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Issues and Supporting Information Sources 14.a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 2, Figure 15, Pg.70) 14.b. Disturb archaeological resources? ( Source 2, Figure 14, Pg. 67) 14.c. Affect historical resources? 14.d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 14.e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact X X X X X Comments: 14.a,b,c The project will not have an impact on paleontological, amhaeological or historical rasoumes. The site has been disturbed from prior grading activity and any impacts to these resoumes would have been mitigated dudrig 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 rastdct 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. \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413pa98.ies.doc 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: 15.a. 15.b. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Affect existing recreational opportunities? No Impact X CoRlrRerlts: 15,a-c X The project will have no impact and will not impact or increase demand for neighborhood, regional parks, other recreational facilities or opportunities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula, but will primarily serve the needs of the existing residents. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Issues and Supporting Information Sources 16.a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 16.b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 16.c. Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). 16.d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? EARLIER ANALYSES. None Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impac~ No Impact X X X X \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413pa98,ies.doc SOURCES 2. 3. 4. 5. City of Temecula General Plan. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 060742-0005-B (November 20, 1996) Geotechnical Investigation Report prepared by Schaefer Dixon (August 15, 1989) %\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413pa98.ies.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STAFFRPT\413pa98pc.doc 16 Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA98-0413 (Development Plan) Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: 3.a. Expose people to impacts from fault rupture. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the 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. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: 3.b,c. Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. Utilize construction and compaction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building and approval. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Responsible Monitoring Party: Building and Safety Department. Safety Department for General impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: 3.f. 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. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413pa98.ies.doC General Impact; Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: 3.f. 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. 3.a-c, e. Exposure of people or property to seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, landslides or mudflows, 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. 3.a-c, e, h. 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 \%TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413pa98.ies.doc Water General Impact: Mitigation Measure: 4.a, 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, Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: 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: 4.b. 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), 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). \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413pa98.ies.doc Transportation/Circulation General Impact: 6.a. Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Mitigation Measure: Payment of Development Impact Fees for road improvements, traffic impacts, and traffic signals. Specific Process: Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits, Responsible Monitoring Party: Building and Safety Department. Biological Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: 7.a. 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. Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Planning Department Public Services General impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: 11.a. A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire protection. The project incrementally increases the need for fire protection. 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. Responsible Monitoring Party: Building & Safety Department. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA%DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413pa98.ies.doc General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: 11 .c. 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. Responsible Monitoring Party: Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School District. General Impact: 11 .d. A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads. This project will have an incremental affect on public facilities. Mitigation Measure: Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public facilities. Specific Process: Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits. Responsible Monitoring Party: Building and Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: 13.c. 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. Responsible Monitoring Party: Building & Safety Department. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\413pa98.ies.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRPT\413pa98pc.doc CITY OF TEMECULA VICINITY NO SCALE MAP PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0413 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 2, 1998 VICINITY MAP R:\STAFFRPT\413~a98oc.doc CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - LI (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL Project Site LM EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0413 (Development Plan) PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 2, 1998 R:,,STAFFRPT\413oa98oc.dOc CITY OF TEMECULA 0 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0413 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT- D PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 2, 1998 SITE PLAN R:,,STAFFRPT~413~a98Dc.doc CITY OF TEMECULA L,J LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0413 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 2, 1998 LANDSCAPE PLAN R:\STAFFRPT',413Da98oc.doc CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0413 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - F PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 2, 1998 ELEVATIONS CITY OF TEMECULA FLOOR PLAN PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0413 (Development Plan) EXHIBIT - I PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 2, 1998 FLOOR PLAN R:\STAFFRPTX413oa98oc.doc ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY Of TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 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: ADOPT Resolution No. 98- , denying Planning Application No. PA95-0079 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: William and Michael Peruchetti REPRESENTATIVE: Michael L. Benesh PROPOSAL: To subdivide approximately 2.9 acres into four (4) residential lots LOCATION: South side of Pauba Road, between La Primavera Street and Showalter Road STATUS This case was brought before the Planning Commission on September 2, 1998 with a recommendation for denial by staff. The applicant was granted a continuance to October 7, 1998 to give him time to complete requirements necessary to proceed with the processing of the map. Some progress was made but not all issues were addressed. Two other requests for continuance were granted, to November 4, 1998 and December 2, 1998. The applicant was informed that staff would not support any further continuances beyond December2, 1998. Howeverstaff received no further information from the applicant. Staff refers the Commission to the Staff Report of September 2, 1998 which is attached. Percolation tests were done at the site on September 15, 1998. Staff received a clearance letter from the Department of Environmental Health dated September 22, 1998. With regards to cultural resources, the applicant provided evidence of prior grading and the import of fill material to the site. Staff determined that mitigation could be achieved by conditioning the applicant to provide a paleontologist on site for grading of Parcels 1 and 3 due to the amount of cut anticipated on these tots. The balance of the issues as outlined in the staff report of September 2, 1998 remain areas of concern since they have not been fully addressed. These issues include: site constraints, drainage, and access. Staff received an additional letter in opposition, dated November 4, 1998 which is attached. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\79pa95-denial.doc 1 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff feels that areas of concern 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 and drainage courses. 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 and drainage courses. 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. V, TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\79pa95-denial.doe 2 Attachments: 1. PC Resolution - Blue Page 4 2. PC Staff Report, dated September 2, 1998 - Blue Page 7 Exhibits - Blue Page 8 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257 Development Review Committee Comment Letters - Blue Page 9 A. September 26, 1995 B. April 21, 1998 C. August 5, 1998 D. September 21, 1998 5. Correspondence Received - Blue Page 10 B. C. D. E. F. China Sea Development Corporation, dated September 18, 1995 Robert and Evelyn Backstrom, dated August 26, 1998 Paul and Dagmar King, 30511 Colina Verde Street, dated August 24, 1998 Gordon and Cathy Skeoch, 43085 Showalter Road, dated September 1, 1998 Steve and Linda Nelson, dated September 1, 1998 Denny and Sue Gosser, dated November 4, 1998 Letters Requesting Continuance - Blue Page 11 A. September 2, 1998 B. September 23, 1998 R:\STAFFRPT~79pa95-denial.do~ 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 98- \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX79pa95~Ienial.doc 4 ATTACHMENT 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 continued Planning Application No. PA95-0079 on September 2, 1998, October 7, 1998, November 4, 1998 and December 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 hearings and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission denied Ptanning 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. 480: 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 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. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFrS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX79pa95-denial.doc 5 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 December, 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 December, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFI'X79pa95-d~GiaLdOC 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC STAFF REPORT DATED SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 \\TEMEC_FS201'~DATAMDEPTSXPLANNING',STAFFRPT\79pa95-denial.doc 7 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION September 2, 1998 ORIGINAL 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:~TAFFRFT\79pa95 .$TAFFRPT. 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 rodesigned map, which was ultimately received on March 13, 1998. A second Development Review Commiftee 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 areas of concern. 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 Drainage 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 Califomia Eastem 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 staffs 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 ope.ned 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 pdvate 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 ensudng emergency vehicle access both from Pauba Road onto the private cul-de-sac, and through the grade transitions along the length of the cul-de-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 cdb 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~70pa95.STAFFRPT.PC.doc 3 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff feels that areas of concern 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 cdb 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 intedor of the properb/. Fiat 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:',STAFFRPTX79pa95.STAFFRPT.I~C.doc 4 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFFSXPLANNING\STAFFR.PT\79pa95..denial.doc 8 CITY OF TEMECULA SANTIAGO TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 282.57 bf ~.~R/,f, fA V, COLINA VERDE ~RO AD RO ~ ES 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 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. 4 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMENT LETTERS \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT\79pa95-denial.doc 9 Cit of Temecula s Park Drive · Temecula, California 92590 September 26, 1995 (909] 694-1989 · FAX [909) 694-1999 Michael Benesh Benesh Engineering 404 S. Live Oak Park Road Fallbrook, 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 staffs 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 meeting. 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:\PLANNI~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 if "No parcel under one acre in size is created..." (Section 3. 1q.B). The current provision to provide access to two newly cre~ted parcels under one acre in size will not be permitted per City Ordinance. Therefore, the project will be requixed to be redesigned. Planning Department 2. An mended site plan which incorporates the following: 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 axeas (25 % slope, and natural drainage courses) and provide a calculation of the mount 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 rights to the proposed 20' access easement and 10' drainage easement prior to resubmitting 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 ff it fails within the street light spacing. 3' concrete v-gutter shall be contained in a undersidewalk drain on Pduba 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, Assistant Planner CC: William Pemchetti, 5550 Marengo, La Mesa, CA 91941 Laura Cabral, Fire Department Steve Creeswell, Public Works Department Beryl Yasinosky, TCSD City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive · PO Box 9033 · Temecula · California 92589-9033 (909) 694-6400 mFAX (909) 694-6477 April 21, 1998 Michael A. Peruchetti Affordable Door and Window Supply 42387 Avenida Alvarado, Suite #102 Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Second Development Review Committee Comments for planning Application No. PA95-0079 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257) Dear Mr. Peruchetti: On April 2, 1998 City staff held a second Developmere Review Committee (DRC) meeting to discuss the above-referenced map with you and your engineer. At the meeting, staff discussed severa/areas of concern regarding your project, including topographic constraints, access Fades, septic system and pad locations. At the meeting you promised to submit a 1995 Preliminary Title Report as well as an updated Report within two weeks. To date, we have received neither document. Because of the sigm~cant 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 cha~ges requested, you are no longer interested in completing this application and we shall close the casefile. 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 Works - 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: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. i0. Vicinity 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: I1. 12. Preliminary Title Report Drainage study Additional corm-nents: 13. The applicant must acquire the rights to the proposed access easement and drainage easement prior to approval of this tentative map I4. 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. Construct sidewalk on Pauba Road along property frontage 16. Install street light on Pauba road along property frontage (If it falls within street light spacing) I7. Vacate Pauba Road along property frontage 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. 21. 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. 23. 24. 25. 26. Show driveway grades maximum not to exceed 15 %. Provide a 10-scale cross-section of the grade transition from Pauba Rd to your road. No parking along the entire length of the proposed road will be permitted in order Eo maintain the 24-foot winirrlurn drive width. Show locations of all existing fire hydrants and provide new hydrants at begmv.~g and end of new street. Driveways must take there access from a public or private street. NOT AN EASEMENT. Ai1 questions regarding this letter shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau staff. Temecula Community Services District - Beryl Yasinosky, Development Services Analyst 27. Payment of Quimby fees will be required prior to the issuance of each building perm it for each parcel. 28. All slopes and open spaces shall be maintain by the property owners. 29. 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 the 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 Depm u.ent 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 elLminutes the proposed crib wall with a height of 18 feet. 36. A radius map was not included in the packets for public hearing notices. I have arT, ached a copy of Section I- Public Hearing Requirements for your convenience. 37, Environmental clearance requires review for cultural resources. I have attached 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 of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. Submit at time of plan review complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with ordinance number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. R:\PLANNINGX79PA95.DRL 4123198 ctl 40. Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction work. ,.t I. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 42. Provide Occupancy approvals for all existing buildings (i.e. finaled building permits or Certificate of Occupancy) 43. .~dl 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 ent~.. 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 lighting, fire alarm systems. 48. 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 signature on plans submitted for plan review. 51. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 52. Tress calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturers engineer are required for plan review submittal. 53. Provide precise grading plma for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility. 54. A proconstruction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the building construction. 55. Modularbnildings 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 City. Code Enforcement Officer will be contacting you shortly to address public health and safety concerns requiring mediate attention. Additionally, all existing structures and buildings on the subject property shall require compliance with the Uniform Building Code; as necessary the City will 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 (10) copies of the amended map, two (2) copies of the Preliminary Title ReporL along with the other requested materials to the Planning Depaa huent. Upon re- submittal and determination of completeness, staff shall schedule the project for the next available Plarming 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:/95~79,bs 4/13/98 Sincerely, Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Project Planner CC: Michael L. Benesh 404 South Live Oak Park Road Fallbrook, CA 92028 Kevin Peruchetti 5550 Marengo Avenue La Mesa, CA 91941 Annie Bostre-Le, Public Works Norm Davidson, Fire Anthony Ekno, Chief Building Official Mark Berg, Building Beryl Yasmosky, TCSD Cindy Keirsey, Code Enforcement Officer r:\950079.bs4/13198 - City f T o emecula 43200 Business Park Drive · PO Box 9033 · Temecula · California 92589-9033 (909) 694-6400 'FAX (909) 694-6477 August 5, 1998 Mr. Michael A. Peruchetti Affordable Door and Window Supply 42387 Avertida Alvarado, Suite #102 Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Staff Comments regarding the revised map submitted July 15, 1998 for Planrung Application No. PA95-0079 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257) Dear Mr. Peruchetti: Staff has reviewed the most recent revised submittal from 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, I998, 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, 1998 Planning Commission heating, and at this time, will be recommending denial. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call our offices at (909) 694-6400. Sincerely, Carole K. Donahoe, AICP Project Plarmer CO: Enclosure: Michael Benesh, 404 South Live Oak Park Road, Fallbrook, CA 92028 Kevin Peruchetti, 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 Yasinosky, TCSD Code Enforcement Second Development Review Committee Comments dated April 21, 1998 City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive · PO Box 9033 · Temecula · California 92'589-9033 (909) 694-6400 ·FAX (909) 694-6477 September 21, 1998 Mr. Michael A. Peruchetti Affordable Door and Window Supply 42387 Avenida Alvarado, Suite #102 Temecula, CA 92590 via FAXI 676-4340 SUBJECT: Staff Comments regarding proposed revisions for Planning Application No. PA95-0079 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257) Dear Mr. Peruchetti: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you, your engineer and members of your family on September 15, 1998 to discuss the proposed revisions to Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257. This letter shall serve to summarize our discussions and list reqmrements necessary to continue the processing of this case. Please use this letter as a checklist and timeline for submitting items. 1. Percolation Test It is our understanding that a Percolation Test was conducted on Tuesday, September 15, 1998 and that the results of the test would be transmitted to Greg Dellenbach of the Riverside County Environmental Health Department on Friday, September 18, 1998. You agreed to provide Jerry Alegria of the City's Public Works Department a copy of the test by Monday, September 21, 1998. 2. Clearance Letter from Environmental Health This letter is required prior to the completion of an Environmental Assessment for the project, and is due no later than September 30, 1998. 3. Drainage Easement You indicated that you have had discussions with the adjacent property owner to the south regarding securing an easement for drainage purposes. You indicated that you would obtain, at the very least, a letter updating comments received by the City in correspondence dated September 18, 1995 from the China Sea Development Corporation. This letter must be submitted no later than September 30, 1998. 4. Cultural Resources Phase I Study You indicated that you would comply with the University of Califomia's request for a Phase I records search and field survey. The result of this survey shall be submitted no later than September 30, 1998. 5. Revisions to the Mal~ Exhibit - The following revisions shall be made to the Tentative Map and ten Planning\planning\79pa95 .revision-ltr-9-21-98 revise bluelines and an 8X10 reduction shall be submitted no later than September 30, 1998: Identify the existing workshop on Parcel 2 as "Existing Workshop Proposed for Conversion to 2-Story Residence." Add the location of the proposed detached garage, and the location of the walkway leading to the residence. Identify any existing slructures proposed for demolition and removal. Identify any existing structures to remain, and their proximity to proposed parcel l~nes. Indicate the amount of cut and fill required for each parcel, and the total amount for the project site. 6. Additional Exhibits Reauested - The following items shall be submitted no later than September 30, 1998: Provide a detailed profile of the cul-de-sac, showing the base grade and elevations, for the Fire Department. Provide similar detailed profiles for all proposed driveways to reach each residence. Provide exhibits depicting the proposed crib wall with height and length measurements. Provide detailed dimensions and materials to be used for the proposed safety fencing atop the crib wall. Any other information or visuals such as brochures or photographs that would be helpful to the Planning Commission should be submitted in 10 sets for distribution in Commission packets. 7. Letter reouestin~ a Continuance You agreed to submit, or fax as soon as possible, a letter requesting that your case be continued from the October 7, 1998 Planning Commission hearing to the November 4, 1998 Planning Commission agenda. We require receipt of this letter no later than September 24, 1998. Upon receipt of the above-listed items, staff will determine whether the project is complete and whether the Environmental Assessment can be completed by staff and distributed for public review and comment. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (909) 694-6400. Sincerely, CaroleK. Donahoe, AICP Project Planner CC: Michael Benesh, via FAX: 760-728-6938 Kevin Peruchetti, 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 Yasinosky, TCSD Code Enforcement Planning\planning\79pa95.revision-ltr-9-21-98 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\79pa95-denial.doc 10 China Sea Development Corporation 30222 Corte Cantera Temecula,Calif. 9259] September 18, 1995 City of Temecula, Planning Staff City of Temecula, Planning Commission DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRESIDENT PECEIV B NOV 1 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 standards for: say $ ]30,000.00 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 agreement 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 proOerty, the City has to sotue the following adverse, damaging problems and conditlons: (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 lot by perhaps as much as 50%. The above drainage problem was created by the owners of T.P.M. No. 28257 withou~ the approval or consent of CSDC. 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.M. No. 28257 shall be approved by the City, CSDC, and other affected owners, in advance. c. That,the owners of T.P.M. No. 28257 and the other owner, or the City shall: Pay for all merits to be standards. development, improvements and better- consnructed to the City codes and (3) 2. TO guarantee the home at 30540 Estero Street and its recorded lot Parcel 2 (Lot"A") of Parcel Map No. 24633, shall not be 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 granting of an easement across CSDC recorded Parcel 2, (Lot "A") of Parcel Map No.24633. 6. That, CSDC is represented by our engineer, Larry Markham, and our representative in Temecula, Dan Naron, (676-6382). With best wishes, we trust that the City,in its wisdom,shall see fit to protect the best interest of CSDC and it's neighbors, who have invested heavily in the Estero Street development in accordance with the City codes and standards, and we remain Sin erely, orporation cc: A/S Larry Markham Mike Benesh Dan & Denise Naron Judy Paine August 26, 1998 City of Temecula Planrang Commission 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 AUG 2 6 9 Dear Board Members, By Refer to Planning 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 approved: 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 fi'om 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 equipment. An unreachable housefire in the proposed subdivision would hazard homes in the immediate area. 4) Should the Pemcherti'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 From the desk of.. . DAGMAR KING / P/q/J/' '7../,(/A/~' Gordon & Cathy Skeoch 43085 Showalter Road Temecula, CA 92592 September 1, 1998 City of Temecula Planning Comrmssion 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Re: Planning Application No. PA95-0079/Tentative Tract No. 28257 William & Michael Peruchetti (Applicant) Dear Members of the Plamung Comrmssion: This letter is in response to the Public Heanng Notice we received last week regarding the above referenced application. We have occupied the properly listed as "Edmeier" APN 945-070-015 on the proposed map since December of 1995. We have some concems regarding the subdivision of the proposed property: 1. Past history of non-compliance, i.e., below-code structures built on present property which contain trash, cars, oldappliances, and various other junk. 2. Grading issues have not been clarified. It doesn't appear that the plans concur with the General Plan for the Chaparral Area, i.e., alteration of natural slopes, drainage courses, etc. 3. Proposed crib wall of 30 feet high and 130 feet long does not concur with General Plan for the area. We have concerns about stability, ram damage, etc. Aesthetically an eye sore as well. 4. The four parcels appear to be an odd configuration with only two real usable parcels which currently have below-code structures on them. Four seems to be too many for this small area~ 5. We question the properly owners intentions for this project. What guarantee do we have that they would actually cany through with their proposed plan? Based on these issues, we are in full support of the Planning Comrmssion to deny this proposal. Sincerely, Gordon Skeoch Cathy Ske4ch Sept. 1, 1998 To: City, of Temecula Planning Commission Re: Planning Application # PA95-0079 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28257) Location: South side Pauba Road, between La Primeavera Street and Showalter Road We are writing as homeowners whose property borders the east side of this proposed project. We are strongly opposed to this project. Our objection is related to the near vertical cut for the placement of a 130 foot long and 30 to 40 foot high crib wall on the edge of our property. This outrageous proposal would be: I ) extremely dangerous for our childrens safety 2) an enormous devaluations to our home value 3) an unsightly deep vertical cut through the existing natural hillside We are also concerned about the numerous building and safety code violations that has gone on for many years, including buildings constructed without permits. Already the applicant has made an 8 to 10 foot vertical cut on the edge of our property, resulting in a safety hazard and heavy soil erosion of our property. Please do not allow such a proposal causing such damage to our property and our community. Sincerely, Steve and Linda Nelson To: Planning Director for the City of Temecula Subject: Planning application No. PA95-0079 Nov.4, 1998 Sir, My name is Denny Gosser and my wife's name is Sue. We live at 30680 Santiago Road, Temecula, CA 92592. We would like to go on record as being opposed to the splitting of the 2.81acre lot as described in planning application No. PA95-0079. We are opposed for the following reasons. · CC&R's that we received for this area require that any splitting of property must be approved by a committee located at P.O. Box 2095, Hemet, CA 92343. ( Doc # 7732 refers to Book 81, Pages 83 & 84) 8/12/74 · By allowing more homes to be built on smaller lots, it will create more noise and dust pollution, traffic problems, and increase the existing erosion problems on Santiago Road. · De -valuation of existing homes in the area. With the smaller homes on smaller lots it will provide lower value for "Comps" in this area thus de- valuation of our properties which are existing. · Water, electric, gas, telephone, cable TV and fire protection were installed along Pauba Road several years ago. When they were designed the intent was for 2.5 to 5 acre lots to be located in this area. By splitting the lots up this will require at least extra funds to do a feasibility study to see if the existing system is capable of sustaining all of the future home sites. It could require funds to up grade existing facilities for the city. · This area is set up as an equestrian area with the existing homeowners. What assurance do we have that if smaller parcels are allowed in the area that our riding trails and love for horses won't come under attack from the new homeowners, and will they try to force us to give up the reason we moved here in the first place. We have been through two battles with the city of Huntington Beach involving homeowners moving horses out, and as a property owner here I will fight to keep our right to have homes at home. As smaller developments emerge they seem to ban together to get the big guy who has been there for a while because there are more of them with a common interest, thus being able to remove what was there before them. · What environmental impact studies have been done and how are the endanger species being protected? If you have any questions I can be contacted at 909-676-5854. We have not spoken to any of the other homeowners except Mrs. G. Moore at 30600 Santiago Road, and she agrees with us. Please keep me informed of any building plans in this area. Sincerely, Denn~'u~e Gosser ATTACHMENT NO. 6 LETTERS REQUESTING CONTINUANCE \XTEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPT$\PLANNING\STAFFRFF\79pa95<lenial.dOC C C SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 CITY OF TEMECULA/ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: Addressing Staff Comments 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 I would like to address the Planning Commission Hearing today, Sept. 2, 1998. I am aware of the August 5, 1998 letter from the Project Planner, Carole Donahoe, the letter indicates areas of concern, which included 55 items to be revised concerning the TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP , no. 2825?. I and my engineer Michael Benesh are working on the the issues listed on your, August 5, 1998 letter. The items listed are more time consuming than anticipated, that is wh7 at this time I am requesting a continuance to revise the TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP # 28257 and address your letter regarding the areas of concern on the TENTATIVE PARCEL'MAP, no. 28257. My goal is to create a successful land split within the next few months, I also need the continued correspondents from the City of Temecula, Project Planning Committee to accomplish this task. At tonights meeting, I would like to issues of 1. 2 3 4 briefly address some concern such as, Continuance to be scheduled Oct 7, 1998 Exhibit of Crib wall to concerned neighbors Exhibit water drainage on to Mr. Paine's property Answer questions or concerns of nearby neighbors regarding the proposed land split. Sincerely, Mr. Peruchetti ]Nonday September 28, 1~8 2:A:ipm -- Pa~--*I ,-~ City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula,CA 92589 Attn: Carole K. Donshoe, AICP Project Planner 9-23-98 I am requesting the case be continued from the October 7, 1998 Planning Commission hearing to the November 4, 1998 Plarming Commission agenda, S i ncerely, Hr. ~fichael Peruchetti ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) RECOMMENDATION: Prepared By: Carole Donahoe and David Hogan The Planning Department Staff recommends the Commission: 1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA97-0237; and, 2. ADOPT Resolution No. 98- recommending approval of PA97-0237 (General Plan, Zoning Map, and Development Code Amendments) based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report APPLICATION INFORMATION: APPLICANT: PROPOSALS: LOCATION: SURROUNDING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: Planning City Initiated To amend the General Plan designations for a portion of the site from Office and Neighborhood Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial, in accordance with Exhibit A; To change the Zoning Map for the entire site from Professional Office and Neighborhood Commercial to Planned Development Overlay (PDO-1); and To Amend the Development Code to add text for the Pala Road Planned Development Oveday District, Sections 17.22.100 through 17.22.108. East of Pala Road, south of State Highway 79 South North: South: East: West: Conservation (Open Space) Low Medium Density Residential (3 - 6 du/ac) Low Medium Density Residential (3 - 6 du/ac) Low Medium Density Residential (3 - 6 du/ac) Vacant and commercial (Hazit Market and Out-A-Space Mini & RV Storage) \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doc 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Temecula Creek channel Single family residential subdivisions Flood Control facilities and the Riverwalk subdivision Single family residential subdivisions PROJECT STATISTICS: Parcels: 4 Total Area: 12.16 acres BACKGROUND The purpose of this proposal is to develop site-specific land use standards for a unique commercial situation along Pala Road south of Murrieta Creek. This item was originally noticed and heard at the December 15, 1997 Planning Commission headrig. At that time the Commission requested that staff review the matter further. Staff had prepared additional information and an alternative proposal for the January 5, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. This item was subsequently continued at the January 26, 1998, February 2, 1998, and March 2, 1998 Planning Commission hearings. Copies of the minutes from the vadous Commission meetings am included in Attachment No. 3. Staff currently believes that the formerly unresolved right-of-way issues can now be addressed during the planning phase of development. ANALYSIS Land Uses Based upon input received from the Commission and community, staff has developed a Planned Development Overlay for these properties that is substantially based on the current neighborhood commercial zoning designation. However, staff has tded to tailor this list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses to not only provide adequate economic opportunities for the property owners, but also to minimize noise and traffic impacts on the surrounding community. The economic use of much of this area is significantly impacted by the existing easements the cross through some of the area. The basic land use regulations take 62 of 68 permitted and conditionally permitted uses from the Neighborhood Commercial zone and combine them with 15 to 20 other land uses that were taken from the Service Commercial zone. Most of these additional uses are business that rely on outdoor storage as part of their operation. In addition, staff is also recommending several rural supporting commercial uses that are compatible with this location. A supplemental comparison of the various permitted uses for the Neighborhood Commercial, Service Commercial, and the proposed Pala Road PDO is contained in Attachment No. 4. Development Standards Additionally, the proposed PDO-1 also contains supplemental development standards that would require screening and landscaping along Pala Road and next to Temecula Creek and next to the adjacent residences. These supplemental requirements would augment the basic provisions of the Neighborhood Commercial zoning distdct. All requirements not specifically addressed in the planned development overlay would automatically revert to the Development Code and/or citywide Design Guidelines. A copy of the proposed overlay zoning is contained in Attachment No. 2. \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doC 2 Staffs recommends that a single Planned Development Overlay (PDO) District be created for all four parcels. Chapter 17.22 of the Development Code states that the purpose of this oveday is to permit creative mixtures of uses in smaller areas where a specific plan or village center overlay is not appropriate. It allows for flexibility in the regulations and design standards, and also allows a mixture of uses not normally permitted by conventional City zoning. This proposal wou!d be to create Planned Development Overlay District No. 1 (PDO-1). Traffic In an effort to provide the Commission with a estimate of the possible future traffic impacts from this proposal, staff has undertaken an preliminary analysis of the traffic generated by these general plan land uses. The analysis uses the traffic generation rates and standard lot coverages that were used in the original traffic analysis for the General Plan and indicated that this proposal would not result in a significant increase in the number of vehicle tdps in to and out of this area. The list of assumptions for this evaluation is contained in Attachment No. 6. The City Traffic Engineer has evaluated this methodology and is satisfied that, for a General Plan level analysis, it is reasonable and technically defensible. As indicated, there should be very little difference between the current General Plan land use designation and the proposed Planned Development Overlay district being proposed for this area. Given the current site constraints and probable development pattern, the actual number of trips should be less than these preliminary estimates indicate. LAND USES DALLY TRIP GENERATION Current General Plan Designations (9.8 Ac @ Professional Office and 2.4 Ac. @ Neighborhood Commercial) 6,770 Neighborhood Commercial Proposal (12.2 Ac @ Neighborhood Commercial) 8,510 Modified Analysis to reflect unbuildable easement areas (9.6 Ac @ Neighborhood Commercial and 2.6 Ac @ Service Commercial) 6,810 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An initial environmental study was performed for this project and determined that the proposal could potentially affect geology, water, transportation/circulation, aesthetic and cultural resources. The study was prepared only for the general plan amendment and zone change because no detailed development proposals have been submitted to the City. The Initial Study was originally circulated between November 26, 1997 and December 15, 1997 and no comments were received. Any mitigation measures identified in the initial study document will be implemented when detailed development proposals are submitted. A copy of the Initial Environmental Study is contained in Attachment No. 5 \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~237PA97.PC6,doc 3 SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS Staff has evaluated a number of options and variations to try to address the many site constraints. Based upon the Commission's previous comments, staff feels that the proposed Planned Development Overlay district provides the appropriate flexibility and design standards ne~:essary to allow reasonable development in a manner compatible with the surrounding area. FINDINGS Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone) as proposed is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The project is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The site is already zoned for commercial uses and is already being partially used for commercial purposes. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. Attachments: 5. 6. 7. PC Resolution No. 98- - Blue Page 5 Exhibit A - Resolution No. 99- - Blue Page 8 Exhibit B - Ordinance No. 99- - Blue Page 11 Proposed Planned Development Overlay District No I - Blue Page 15 1. Minutes from the December 15, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting - Blue Page 28 2. Minutes from the January 12, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting - Blue Page 29 3. Minutes from the February 2, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting - Blue Page 30 4. Minutes from the March 2, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting - Blue Page 31 Comparison of Permitted Uses - Blue Page 32 Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 43 Preliminary Traffic Study work sheets - Blue Page 44 Exhibits - Blue Page 47 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doc 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doc 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-B A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION PA97-0237) AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR S PARCEL NOSo 950-110-018, 019, 020, AND 032, AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.100 THROUGH 17.22.108 TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237) WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plans as may be in effect in any such city; and WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance shall be consistent with the adopted general plan of the city; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; and, WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on December 15, 1997 and December 2, 1998 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237) AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-018, 019, 020, AND 032, AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.100 THROUGH 17.22.108 TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237) SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORMS THAT ARE A'I'I'ACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBITS A AND B, RESPECTIVELY. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%237PA97.PC6,doc 6 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of December, 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 2nd day of December, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doC 7 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 99-,_ \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doC 8 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 99- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION PA97-0237) WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well as any adjacent areas which, in the judgement of the city, bears a relationship to its planning; and WHEREAS, On November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan. WHEREAS, Sections 65350 of the Govemment Code permits a city to amend the General Plan; and WHEREAS, them is a need to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to accurately reflect private property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on December 15, 1997 and December 2, 1998, with numerous continuances, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment; and __,1999 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CiTY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map The City Council hereby amends the General Plan Land Use Designations for the parcels identified as APN 950-110-016, 019, and 032 from Office (O) to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Section 2. Environmental Review. The City Council, based upon the information contained in the Initial Environmental Study, finds that the impacts of the proposed amendments are accurately described and discussed within the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the General Plan and that the FEIR accurately reflects the impacts of the amended General Plan on City of Temecula and its surrounding areas. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA%DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%237PA97.PC6.doc 9 Section 3. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ._th day of ,1999. A'R'EST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of ']:emecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of ,1999 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk \%TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS%PLANNING%STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doc 10 EXHIBIT B ORDINANCE NO. 99-__ \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%237PA97.PC6.doC 11 EXHIBIT B ORDINANCE NO. 99- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ON THE EAST SIDE OF PALA ROAD SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH RAINBOW CANYON ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR S PARCEL NOS. 950-110-018, 019, 020, AND 032, AND ADDING SECTIONS 17.22.100 THROUGH 17.22.108 TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237) WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plans as may be in effect in any such city; and WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance shall be consistent with the adopted General Plan of the city; and WHEREAS, there is a need to amend the Zoning Map to accurately reflect private property and to be consistent with the adopted General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on December 15, 1997, and December 2, 1998, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the City Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; and, WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on to consider the proposed amendments to the City Zoning Map. __,1999 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY ZONING MAP The City Council hereby amends the Zoning Map for the City of Temecula as specified below: A. For the parcels identified as APN 950-110-O18, 019, and 032: change the Zoning designation from Professional Office (PO) to Planned Development Overlay No. 1 (PDO-1). B. For the parcel identified as APN 950-110-020, change the Zoning Designation from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Planned Development Overlay No. 1 (PDO-1). \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~237PA97.PC6,doc 12 Section 2. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY NO. 1 The City Council hereby adopts the supplemental standards and requirements for PDO-1, Planned Development Overlay District No. I as contained in Exhibit A of this ordinance. Section 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. The City Council, based upon the information contained in the Initial Environmental Study, finds that the impacts of the proposed amendments are accurately described and discussed within the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the General Plan and that the FEIR accurately reflects the impacts of the amended General Plan on City of Temecula and its surrounding areas. Section 4. SEVERABILITY, The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 5. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage, The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237pA97.pC6.doc 13 Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of ,1999. ATTEST: Ron RoberrS, Mayor Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of ,1999 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doc 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PROPOSED STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT NO. I \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doc 15 17.22.100 Title Sections 17.22.100 through 17.22.108 shall be known as "PDO-1" (Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District). 17.22.102 Purpose and intent The Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District (PDO-1) is intended to provide regulations for the safe and efficient operation, and creative design of a unique commercial area within the city. The area is significantly constrained with easements, flood plains, potential fault zones, and adjacent residential development. This special overlay zoning district regulation is intended to permit a range of neighborhood convenience uses, with selected outdoor storage and other appropriate rural serving commercial uses. Supplemental performance standards have also been provided to ensure compatibility with the adjacent neighborhoods and to protect adjoining uses from excessive noise, odor, smoke, toxic materials, and other potentially objectionable impacts. It is the intent of the City to use these special regulations to supplement the regulations of land uses and development already existing within the adopted Development Code. 17.22.104 Relationship with the Development Code and Citywide Design Guidelines A. The list of permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses for the Pala Road Planned Development Ove~ay District is contained in Table 17.22.106. B. Except as modified by the provisions of Section 17.22.108, the following rules and regulations shall apply to all planning applications in this area. 1. The development standards in the Development Code that would apply to any development within a Neighborhood Commercial zoning district that are in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. 2. The citywide Design Guidelines that are in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. 3. The approval requirements contained in the Development Code that are in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. 4. Any other relevant rule, regulation or standard that is in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. 17.22.106 Use Regulations The list of permitted land uses for the Pala Road Planned Development Overlay district is contained in Table 17.22.106. Where indicated with a letter "P" the use shall be a permitted use. A letter "C" indicates the use shall be conditionally permitted subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Where indicated with a "-", the use is prohibited within the zone. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpTX237pA97.pC6.doc 16 A Adult business Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzercise/martial arts studios (less than 5,000 sq. ~.) Aerobics/dance/gynmastics/jazzercise/martial arts studios (greater than 5,000 sq. ft.) Airports Alcoholism or drug treatment facilities Alcohol and drug treatment (outpatient) Alcoholic beverage sales Ambulance services Animal hospital/shelter Antique restoration Antique sales Apparel and accessory shops Appliance sales and repairs (household and small appliances) Arcades (pinball and video games) An supply stores Auction houses Auditoriums and conference facilities Automobile dealers (new and used) Automobile sales (brokerage)-showroom only (new and used)-no outdoor display Automobile Oil Change/Lube Services with no major repairs Automobile painting and body shop Automobile repair services \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~237 PA97 ,PC6.doc 17 PDO-1 P P P P P Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use Automobile rental Automobile salvage yards/impotmd yards Automobile service stations with or without an automated car wash Automotive parts -- sales Automotive service stations selling beer and/or wine -- with or without an automated car wash B Bakery goods distribution Bakery retail Bakery wholesale Banks and financial institutions Barber and beauty shops Bed and breakfast Bicycle (sales, rentals, services) Billiard parlor/pool hall Binding of books and similar publications Blood bank Blueprint and duplicating and copy services Bookstores Bowling alley Building material sales Butcher shop C Cabinet shop \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doc 18 P P P P C P P P C5 Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use Camera shop (sales/minor repairs) Candy/confectionery sales Car wash, full service Carpet and rug cleaning Catering services Clothing sales Coins, purchase and sales Cold storage facilities Communications and microwave installations2 Communications equipment sales Community care facilities Computer sales aiid service Congregate care housing for the elderly Construction equipment sales, service or rental Contractor's equipment, sales, service or rental Convenience market Costume rentals Crematoriums Cutlery D Data processing equipment and systems Day care centers Delicatessen Discount/department store \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.dOC 19 PDO-I P P P P P P P P C5 C5 C P P P C P Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use Distribution facility Drug store/pharmacy Dry cleaners Dry cleaning plant E Emergency shelters Equipment sales and rentals (no outdoor storage) Equipment sales and rentals (outdoor storage) F Feed and grain sales Financial, insurance, real estate offices Fire and police stations Floor covering sales Florist shop Food processing Fortune telling, spiritualism, or similar activity Freight terminals Fuel storage and distribution Funeral parlors, mortuary Furniture sales Furniture transfer and storage G Garden supplies and equipment sales and service Gas distribution, meter and control station \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97 .PC6.doc 20 PDO-1 P P P P P P P P P P Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use General merchandise/retail s~0~e less than 10,000 sq. ft. Glass and mirrors, retail sales Governmental offices less than 5,000 sq. ft. Grocery store, retail Grocery store, wholesale Guns and firearm sales H Hardware stores Health and exercise clubs (less than 5,000 sq. ft.) Health and exercise clubs (greater than 5,000 sq. ft.) Health food store Health care facili6' Hellports Hobby supply shop Home and business maintenance service Hospitals Hotels/motels I Ice cream parlor Impound yard Interior decorating service J Junk or salvage yard PDO-1 P P P P P P P P \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237 PA97 .PC6 .doc 21 Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use K Kennel L Laboratories, film, medical, research or testing centers Laundromat Laundry service (commercial) Libraries, museums and galleries (private) Liquefied petroleum, sales and distribution Liquor stores Lithographic service Locksmith M Machine shop Machinery storage yard Mail order businesses Manufacturing of products similar to, but not limited to, the following: Custom-made product, processing, assembling, packaging, and fabrication of goods within enclosed building (no outside storage), such as jewelry, furniture, art objects, clothing, labor intensive manufacturing, assembling, and repair processes which do not involve frequent track traffic. Compounding of materials, processing, assembling, packaging, treatment or fabrication of materials and products which require frequent truck activity or the transfer of heavy or bulky items. Wholesaling, storage, and warehousing within enclosed building, freight handling, shipping, truck services and terminals, storage and wholesaling from the premises of unre~ned, raw or semirefined products requiring further processing or manufacturing, and \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97,PC6.doc 22 PDO-1 P P P Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use outside storage. Uses under 20,000 sq. It. with no outside storage Massage Medical equipment sales/rental Membership clubs, organizations, lodges Mini-storage or mini-warehouse4 Mobile home sales and service Motion picture studio Motorcycle sales and service Movie theaters Musical and recording studio N Nightclubs/taverns/bars/dance club/teen club Nurseries (retail) Nursing homes/convalescent homes O Office equipment/supplies, sales/services Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than 50,000 sq. It. Offices, professional services with less than 50,000 sq. It., including, but not limited to, business law, medical, dental, veterinarian (except animal hospitals), chiropractic, architectural, engineering, real estate, insurance P Paint and wallpaper stores Parcel delivery services Parking lots and parking structures \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97,pC6,doc 23 PDO-I P P C C5 C C P P P Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District Pawnshop Personal service shops Pest control services Pet grooming/pet shop Photographic studio Description of Use Plumbing supply yard (enclosed or unenclosed) Postal distribution Postal services Printing and publishing (newspapers, periodicals, books, etc.) Private utility facilities (Regulated by the Public Utilities Commission) Q Reserved R Radio and broadcasting studios, offices Radio/television transmitter Recreational vehicle parks Recreational vehicle sales Recreational vehicle, trailer, and boat storage within an enclosed building Recreational vehicle, trailer and boat storage-exterior yard Recycling collection facilities Recycling processing facilities Religious institution, without a day care or private school Religious institution, with a private school Religious institution, with a day care \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~237PA97.PC6.dOC 24 PDO-I P P P P P P C C C C Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use Residential (one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial Or industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business) Residential, multiple-family housing Restaurant, drive-in/fast food Restaurants and other eating establishments Restaurants with lounge or live entertainment Retail suppor~ use (15 percent of total development square footage in BP and LD Rooming and boarding houses S Scale, public Schools, business and professional Schools, private (kindergarten through Grade 12) Scientific research and development offices and laboratories Senior citizen housing (see also congregate care) Solid waste disposal facility Sports and recreational facilities Swap Meet, entirely inside a pennanent building' Swap Meet, outdoor Swimming pool supplies/equipment sales T Tailor shop Taxi or limousine service Tile sales Tobacco shop \\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA\DEPTS\PLANNJNG\STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doc 25 PDO-1 C P C P P P P P Table 17.22.106 Schedule of Permitted Uses Pala Road Planned Development Overlay District Description of Use Tool and die casting Transfer, moving and storage Transportation terminals and stations Truck rentals (no sales or/service) TV/VCR repair U Upholstery shop V Vending machine sales and service W Warehousing/distribution Watch repair Wedding chapels Welding shop Welding supply and service (enclosed) Y Reserved PDO-I C5 P P P Z Reserved 1. The CUP will be subject to Section 17.08.050(G), special standards for the sale of alcoholic beverages. 2. Subject to citywide antenna standards. 3. See Section 17.08.050.(E), special standards for indoor swap meets. 4. See Section 17.080.050(R), special standards for self-storage or mini-warehouse facilities. 5. Subject to the special setback provisions contained in Section 17.22.108. 17.22.108 Supplemental Design and Setback Standards \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~237PAO7.PC6.dOC 26 A. In addition to the standard setback and landscape requirements of the Neighborhood Commercial Zone contained in Chapter 17.08, the following special setback provisions shall be required for all uses identified with a ,,'5 "in the Permitted Use Matrix and for all other similar outdoor use and storage activities. 1. Outdoor use and storage activities shall be located on the rear portions of each site and shall be fully screened from public view and from adjacent residences. 2. When it is not possible (due to site or use constraints) to locate outdoor use andjor storage activities in the rear portions of the property, a landscaped buffer area, not less than twenty feet in width and backed with an architecturally integrated screening wall shall be installed. No parking or loading areas are allowed in this visual buffer area. The height of the wall shall be six feet. The height of the wall may be increased to eight feet if deemed necessary and appropriate by the Community Development Director. B. All development within PDO-1 shall also comply with the following supplemental buffering requirements: 1. When adjacent to residential uses: a transitional landscaped area, not less than five feet in width shall be installed. The landscaping shall include (at a minimum) trees, shrubs, and appropriate ground cover and should be located outside of the walls used to screen these commercial uses. 2. When adjacent to Temecula Creek: an additional transitional landscaped area, outside of any fences or walls, not less than five feet shall be installed and shall be planted with appropriate native tree and shrub plant species commonly found within Southern California riparian areas. Temporary irrigation may be required to ensure plant establishment. \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~237PA97.PC6.doC 27 ATTACHMENT NO. 3-1 DECEMBER 15, 1997 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEpTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97 ,PC6.doc 28 system will be installed to carry the water from above his property to Temecula hat this drainage issue must be resolved prior to the develol:}ment of the lower of the :t; and clarified that staff of Assessment District 159 are working on th not City bers. Mr. Corona noted that he has seen no progress with rega issue. MOTION: ,,r Miller moved to close the public hearing; to m determination of consistency with a for which an Environmental Impact Repo~ previously certified; and to adopt Resolution 97-042 with the clarification applicant be required to provide language clarifying type of minor deviations Specific Plan could not be approved by the Communi Director. The was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote of those ! ~t reflected , approval (Chairwoman Fahey absent). PC RESO ;0.97-042 A RESOLUTION OF THE PL ~F THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING CITY ADOPT AN INANCE ENTITLED 'AN ORDINANCE OF TI- COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ECULA APPROVING PLANNING APP , NO. PA97-0158 (ZONING AME ENT #6 OF THE PALOMA D SOl. SPECIFIC PLAN SP NO. 219)," WHICH GENERALLY LOCAT NORTH OF SR79 SOUTH, EAST OF MARGARITA ROA OUTH OF PAU ROAD AND WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND KN N AS ~EL NUMBERS 950-020-001 THROUGH 950-020-004, 0- 020-009 THROUGH 950-020-025, 950-020-027, 950-020-029, 955-030-0 THROUGH 955-030-004 AND 955-030-006 THROUG .MEECL~CLWHIH~T~~ PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE) Planning Commission consideration to cleanup General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, changing the designations from Office to Service Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial, and from Neighborhood Commercial to Service Commercial. RECOMMENDATION It was recommended by staff that the Planning Commission approve the request. Because of the close proximity of his residence to the subject site (Agenda Item No. 6) and because he is a consultant for the City with regard to the Western Bypass Corridor (Agenda Item No. 7), Commissioner Soltysiak advised that he would be abstaining with regard to Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 7. He wished everyone a Happy Holiday Season and departed the meeting at this time. Senior Planner Hogan reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material), advising that the Planning Commission December 15, 1997 storage facility has been eliminated and that if this request were approved, the existing towing yard would be considered a legal non-conforming use. Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that the City does not have any time constraints with regard to non-conforming uses, noting that the only mechanism to conform a non-cOnforming use would be if the applicant of such a use would be desirous of making a change to the property; thereby, the property would have to adhere to the existing standards of the Development Code. Mrs. Sharon Miller, 44618 Pala Road, owner of the existing mini-storage facility since June 1983, informed the Commissioners that she and her husband had received a life-time Conditional Use Permit from the County; that a permit was obtained in 1986 with regard to the rental trucks; that a portion of Parcel 2 was leased, with the permission of the County, to accommodate the truck rental business; and that no homes had been constructed in this area in 1983 when the business was started. Because of the impact this rezoning would have on her property, Mrs. Miller spoke in opposition to this zone change and requested that her property be zoned to accurately reflect the current use -- Service Commercial. Because of the accumulation of dirt and because of the negative aesthetic appearance, Ms. Stacy Ketter, 45352 Tournament Lane, expressed concern and questioned the legality of the parked moving trucks on Parcel No. 1. With regard to Parcel No. 1, it was noted by staff that this parcel is zoned Office Professional and, therefore, the parking of moving trucks on this lot would be illegal. Mr. Larry Markham, representing the owner of Parcel No. 4 (currently zoned neighborhood commercial), relayed the owner's support of this zone change and suggested that Mrs. Miller's property be rezi~ned, making it consistent with the existing use. Commenting on concerns expressed by neighboring residents with regard to traffic on Pala Road, staff elaborated on the proposal to redesignate the front portion of three of the four parcels as Neighborhood Commercial (noting that the fourth parcel is already zoned Neighborhood Commercial) and to redesignate the rear portion of all four parcels as Service Commercial. For aesthetic purposes, Vice Chairwoman Slaven relayed her support with the above-mentioned proposal. Expressing a concern with regard to the level of traffic on Pala Road, Commissioner Guerriero requested that this matter be continued to a future meeting so that the Commission may obtain additional information with regard to future traffic impacts. For Commissioner Guerriero, Senior Planner Hogan commented on the Pala Road extension and its impact on Parcel No. 1. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to continue Planning Application No. PA97-O237 to the Planning Commission December 15, 1997 January 5, 1997, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote of those present (Chairwoman Fahey absent and Commissioner Soltysiak abstained). At 7:44 P.M., a short recess was taken with the Commission reconvening at 7:54 P.M. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0392 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) Commission consideration to design, construct, and operate a total 0 square feet of retail, restaurant, arcades, theaters, and shops and (hardscape, parking, and landscaping) on 16.5 acres. It was that the Planning Commission approve th uest. By way of a color renderin landscape plan, elevation, for the proposed project, advisin, area located to the north, a that the proposed billboards will be use of the project. Because the Riverside County Flood Control and Water of a condition to ensure compliance. Associate Planner Fagan review~ detail, the site plan, e and parking analyses the project encompas components -- a parking 9a located to the and the core area. He advised as archite ; and will only be for internal must with the recommendations of the District, he suggested the imposition For Commissioner Guerriero, Principal En has reviewed the traffic analysis comph the conclusion that once the propo., at service level "D." Wilbur Drovemerits dvised that the City's Traffic Engineer rh and Associates and concurred with ompleted, lower SR 79 will remain Mr. Zev Buffman, al 41893 Main Street, announced that the will be early sum~ 1999, giving the Entertainment Center and the ample time to for the year 2000 celebrations. Mr. Buffman commendati staff and the Planning Commissioners for their efforts project. opening date Town merchants ~reciation and with this Rela his parents' greetings and Happy Holiday wishes, Mr. Roy Rogers, Jr., the Commissioners and the audience members that RogersDale USA is a erated business, not a corporation; commented on the attributes of the City which Planning Commission December 15, 1997 A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 3-2 JANUARY 12, 1998 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~237PA97,PC6.doc 29 e Sin Ordinance (as approved by the Planning Commission), Rannin e, for Commissioner Miller, a ' Council would be reviewi ' Inance within the near future, noting that the sign of discussion would have ' the old County Sign Ordinance. Ms. Ubnoske, PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE) Continued to the January 26. 1998, Planning Commission meeting; see page 2. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0438 (AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199} tuning Commission consideraUon to correct the residential development the lot coverage standard unintanUonaliy the processing of Amendment No. 3 to Specific Ran No. t99. IDATION To ap; uesL Project Planner Donahoe I the request (as per staff report of record). Mr. Barry Bumell, representing questions and/or concerns. Expressing Road, #85 (Heritage Park), informed the Corn the south side pictures, Ms. Harker furlher elab permitted until the area of concem is sandbagged concurred with the staff repo~ !nt and/or the answer Ms. Evelyn Harker, 31130 S. General Kearny sandbagging and the recent heavy rains, has resulted in numerous potholes. By way of She requested that no further development be utters have been constructed. Advising that the Public Works Depadment has matter, Principal Engineer Parks informed the Commission and Ms. Harker that the n with sandbagging the area of concern and that discussions are in progress with the a as to the maintenance area, and completing the entire half width of Keamy Road. With rel Mr. Parks advised that those potholes in ~ would be addressed by MOTION: Vice Chairwoman Envir required and to adopt F those / was previously certified and finding ppreval (Chairwoman Fahey absent). PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-001 with a project for which an uent EIR would not be ,r Miller and voice vote of R~SOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTIO OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLAN NO. 199, CONTAINING 1,526 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF LA SERENA WAY, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD, WEST OF MEADOWS PARKINAY, NORTH OF RANCHO A'FFACHMENT NO. 3-3 FEBRUARY 2, 1998 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEpTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97,PC6.doc 30 Ternecula Plannina Commission Februar~ 2. 1998 'AT h the Southside Specific Ran has not been completed, Senior Planner Hogan ' ed that the ' nary stages of this P an seem to indicate that the area south of se Market will be zoned High ourist. In light of her existing concem ' the compatibility of su ing properties in the area of discussion, Chairwoman Fahey, echo Commi ' ers Guerriero and Slaven, expressed concern with the proposed request and ho further impact an already existing compatibility issue. Viewing a color rende ' that once the upcoming improvements ' n will serve as a PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0237 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE Senior Planner Hogan advised that staff is requesting that this item be continued to the March 2, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. MOTION: Commissioner Miller moved to continue PA97~0237 to the March 2, 1998, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote of those present reflected unanimous approval (Commissioner Soltysiak absent). PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0398 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) landsca Commission consideration for the design, construction, a a 8,684 square foot restaurant with associated pal 1.51 acres. and RECO It is recommended by for Planning Application No. for Planning Application No. PA97-0 adopt the Negative Declaration gation Monitoring Program and adopt Resolution No. 98-002. A RESOLUTION OF' APPROVING TO DESIGI% TWO NO. 9 02 COMMISSION OF T CITY OF TEMECULA ON NO. PA97-0398 (D OPMENT PLAN) 8,684 SQUARE FOOT REST NT WITH PATIOS OF 1,185 SQUARE FEET WITH AS CIATED LANDSCAPING, AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ON A 1.51 RE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO ( 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 3-4 MARCH 2, 1998 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRP'T~237PA97.PC6,doc 31 Temecula Plannina Commission March 2. 1998 area of discussion, relayed his understanding that this Item would be continued off calen~ be renoticed at the completion of the Pala Road bridge design. Markham's understanding. MOTION: Item No.3 vote reflected unanimous moved for the approval of the Agent The motion was ,mended (Agenda ;~oner Miller and voice 2. Approval of Minutes -- Febmar Y 23,1998 MOTION: Commissioner Slaven m )rove The motion was seconded ~sioner Guerdero approval with the exce Commissioner Soltysiak who . wi/~e exception of Commissioner Guerriero who abstained. of February 2, 1998, as written. vote reflected unanimous as written. approval PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. Plannina Application No. PA97-0237 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Chanqe) A request to cleanup General Plan Amendment and Zone Change changing the the designations from Office to Service Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial, and from Neighborhood Commercial to Service Commercial. RECOMMENDATION Continued off calendar. 4."""'~lanninq Application No. PA97-0409 (Development Plan) A reque o construct and operate a 71,978 facility including an ce and manager's residential unit on a Assista ;taft report ) and referenced the following added and amended conditions: Add To allow the Planni to work with the ~ approve any modifications LoJuh: soape p,ans which may resu,t 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 COMPARISON OF PERMITTED USES \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS%PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6,doc 32 COiVIPARISON LIST OF PERIVlITTED USES Description of Use A Adult business--subject to Chapter 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code Aerobics/dance/gyn'mastics/jazzercise/martial arts studios (less C P P than 5,000 sq. ~.) Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzercise/martial arts studios (greater p than 5,000 sq. ~.) Airports Alcoholism or drug treatment facilities C Alcohol and drug treatment (outpatient) C Alcoholic beverage sales C' C1 CI Ambulance services P Animal hospital/shelter P Antique restoration C Antique sales P P P Apparel and accessory shops P P P Appliance sales and repairs (household and small appliances) P P P Arcades (pinball and video games) C Art supply stores P P P Auction houses P Auditoriums and conference facilities C Automobile dealers (new and used) C Automobile Oil Change/Lube Services with no major repairs P Automobile sales (brokerage)--showroom only (new and p used)--no outdoor display Automobile repair services P NC \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doC 33 Description of Use Automobile rental Automobile painting and body shop Automotive pans--sales Automobile salvage yards/impound yards Automobile service stations with or without an automated car wash Automotive service stations selling beer and/or wine--with or without an automated car wash B Bakery goods distribution Bakery retail Bakery wholesale Banks and financial institutions Barber and beauty shops Bed and breakfast Bicycle (sales, rentals, services) Billiard parlor/poolhall Binding of books and similar publications Blood bank Blueprint and duplicating and copy services Bookstores Bowling alley Building material sales Butcher shop C Cabinet shop \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doc 34 P P C P P P C1 P P P P P P P P P P P C P P P C P P P P P P P P P C' P P P Description of Use Camera shop (sales/minor repairs) Candy/confectionery sales Car wash, full service Carpet and rug cleaning Catering services Clothing sales Coins, purchase and sales Cold storage facilities Communications and microwave installations2 Communications equipment sales Community care facilities Computer sales and service Congregate care housing for the elderly Construction equipment sales, service or rental Contractor's equipment, sales, service or rental Convenience market Costume rentals Crematoriums Cutlery D Data processing equipment and systems Day care centers Delicatessen Discount/department store Distribution facility Drug store/pharmacy \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~237PA97 .PC6.doc 35 NC PROPOSED SC PDO-1 P P P P P p' C P P P P P P P P P P C P P P P P P P P P C C' C C' C P C P P P P C P P C C C C P P P C P P P Description of Use Dry cleaners Dry cleaning plant E Emergency shelters Equipment sales and rentals (no outdoor storage) Equipment sales and rentals (outdoor storage) F Feed and grain sales Financial, insurance, real estate offices Fire and police stations Floor covering sales Florist shop Food processing_ Fortunetelling, spiritualism, or similar activity Freight terminals Fuel storage and distribution Funeral parlors, mortuary Furniture sales Furniture transfer and storage G Garden supplies and equipment sales and service Gas distribution, meter and control station General merchandise/retail store less than 10,000 sq. ft. Glass and mirrors, retail sales Governmental offices less than 5,000 sq. NC C PROPOSED SC PDO-I P P C C P P C C' P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C p C5 C P P P C P P \\TEMEC_FS201\DATAXDEPTS%PLANNING~STAFFRPTX237PA97.PC6.dOC 36 Description of Use Grocery store, retail Grocery store, wholesale Guns and firearm sales H Hardware stores Health and exercise clubs (less than 5,000 sq. ~.) Health and exercise clubs (greater than 5,000 sq. ft.) Health food store Health care facility Heliports Hobby supply shop Home and business maintenance service Hospitals Hotels/motels I Ice cream parlor Impound yard Interior decorating service J Junk or salvage yard K Kennel L Laboratories, film, medical, research or testing centers Laundromat \\TEMEC_FS201%DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doc 37 NC P C P P P SC P P P P P P P PROPOSED PDO-1 P P P P P P P C P P P P P P P C P Description of Use Laundry service (commercial) Libraries, museums and galleries (private) Liquefied petroleum, sales and distribution Liquor stores Lithographic service Locksmith M Machine shop Machinery storage yard Mail order businesses Manufacturing of products similar to, but not limited to, the following: Custom-made product, processing, assembling, packaging, and fabrication of goods within enclosed building (no outside storage), such as jewelry, furniture, art objects, clothing, labor intensive manufacturing, assembling, and repair processes which do not involve frequent truck traffic. Compounding of materials, processing, assembling, packaging, treatment or fabrication of materials and products which require frequent truck activity or the transfer of heavy or bulky items. Wholesaling, storage, and warehousing within enclosed building, freight handling, shipping, truck services and terminals, storage and wholesating from the premises of unrefined, raw or semirefined products requiring further processing or manufacturing, and outside storage. Uses under 20,000 sq. ft. with no outside storage Massage Medical equipment sales/rental Membership clubs, organizations, lodges Mini-storage or mini-warehouse' %\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~237PA97.PC6,doc 38 NC SC - p C C P P P P P P P P P C C P PROPOSfiD PDO-1 P P P P C Description of Use NC SC Mobilehome sales and service P Motion picture studio P Motorcycle sales and service P Movie theaters Musical and recording studio C N Nightclubs/taverns/bars/dance club/teen club C Nurseries (retail) P Nursing homes/convalescent homes C C O Office equipment/supplies, sales/services C P Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than C 50,000 sq. ft. Offices, professi~3nal services with less than 50,000 sq. it., including, but not limited to, business law, medical, dental, p p veterinarian, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, real estate, insurance P Paint and wallpaper stores P Parcel delivery services P P Parking lots and parking structures C Pawnshop P Personal service shops P P Pest control services C Pet grooming/pet shop P P Photographic studio P P Plumbing supply yard (enclosed or unenclosed) C \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doc 39 PROPOSED PDO-1 C C P P (with a modified definition) P P P P Description of Use Postal distribution Postal services Printing and publishing (newspapers, periodicals, books, etc.) Private utility facilities (Regulated by the Public Utilities Commission) Q Reserved R Radio and broadcasting studios, offices Radio/television transmitter Recreational vehicle parks Recreational vehicle sales Recreational vehicle, trailer, and boat storage within an enclosed building Recreational vehicle, trailer and boat storage-exterior yard Recycling collection facilities Recycling processing facilities Religious institution, without a daycare or private school Religious institution, with a private school Religious institution, with a daycare Residential (one dwelling unit on the same parcel as a commercial or industrial use for use of the proprietor of the business) Residential, multiple-family housing Restaurant, drive-in/fast food Restaurants and other eating establishments Restaurants with lounge or live entertainment Retail support use (15 percent of total development square footage \\TEMEC_FS20I \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~237PA97.PC6,doc 40 P C C C C C SC P P P P C C C C C C C C P C PROPOSED PDO- 1 P P P C C C C C P Description of Use in BP and LI) Rooming and boarding houses S Scale, public Schools, business and professional Schools, private (kindergarten through Grade 12) Scientific research and development offices and laboratories Senior citizen housing (see also congregate care) Solid waste disposal facility Sports and recreational facilities Swap Meet, entirely inside a permanent building Swap Meet, outside Swimming pool supplies/equipment sales T Tailor shop Taxi or limousine service Tile sales Tobacco shop Tool and die casting Transfer, moving and storage Transportation terminals and stations Truck rental (no sales or service) TV/VCR repair U Upholstery shop ~\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PAg7.PC6.doc 41 NC SC C P C C P C C P P P P C P C P P PROPOSED PDO- 1 C P P P P P C5 C P Description of Use V Vending machine sales and service W Warehousing/distribution Watch repair Wedding chapels Welding shop Welding supply and service (enclosed) Y Reserved Z Reserved NC PROPOSED SC PDO-1 P P P 1. The CUP wil.l_be subject to Section 17.08.050(G), special standards for the sale of alcoholic beverages. 2. Subject to citywide antenna standards. 3. See Section 17.08.050.(E), special standards for indoor swap meets. 4. See Section 17.080.050(R), special standards for self-storage or mini-warehouse facilities. 5. Subject to the special setback provisions contained in Section 17.22.108. \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doc 42 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 INITIAL STUDY \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6,doc 43 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Proposed General Plan Designation: Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Description of Project: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Other public agencies whose approval is required: Planning Application No. PA97-0237 (General Plan Amendment and Zone Change) City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590 Carole K. Donahoe, AICP (909) 694-6400 South of State Highway 79 South, east of Pala Road City-Iintiated - City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Ternecula, CA 92590 Office and Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial and Service Commercial Professional Office and Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial and Service Commercial Cleanup General Plan Amendment changing the designation fxom Office and Neighborhood Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial and Service Commercial; and Zone Change changing the zoning ~'om Professional Office and Neighborhood Commercial to Neighborhood Commercial and Service Commercial. Vacant properties and flood control facilities to the north and east; Riverwalk subdivision to the east; Pala Road, Homes by the C~ecn and Rainbow Canyon subdivision to the south and west. Fire Department, Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho Califcrnia Water District, Riverside County Flood Control, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, General Telephone R:\CEQAX237PA97.1E8 1:2/10/97 cd 12. Specificity of Environmental Review: The project is a general plan amendment and zone change and no detailed development proposals have been submitted to the City, no pwject-level evaluation of the potential environmental impacts is possible. Section 15146 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the specificity and detail of environmental analysis should be similar to the detail end specificity of the project Since the project is a general plen amendment/zone chenge within commercial land use designations of the general plan, only a general plan level of evaluation is possible. However, in an effort to provide as much information as possible, some additional evaluation has been provided. Any mitigation measures identified in this document will be implemented when detailed development proposals are available. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, revolving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [ ] Land Use and Planning [ ] { ] Population and Housing [ ] [X] Geologic Problems [ ] Ix] water [ ] [ ] Air Quality lX'] [X] Transporlation/Circulation [X] [ ] Biological Resources [ ] [ ] Energy end Mineral Resources [ ] Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this imtial evaluation: [] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, end a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a signlficent effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on en attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be propared. [] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONlvlENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significent effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately enalyzed in en earlier document pursuent to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by imtigatien ~ based on the earlier enalysis as described on attached sheets, fithe effect is a "potentially significent impact" or "potentially significent unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must enalyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES po~s~ially sisnine,m 1. LAND USE AND PIANNING. Would the proposal: a.Conflict with general plan designation or zomug? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) b.Comqict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impects to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)? 2. POPUIATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? (Sourco 1, Page 2-23) b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrasU'ucture)? c.Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential hnpacts InvolvIng." a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure %1, Page 7-6, Source 4) b. Seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) d. Seiehe, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e. Landslides or mudflows? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or ~ll? g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) h. Expansive soils? I. Umque geologic or physical features? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [x] [x] [x] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [l [1 [] [] [x] [] [] Ix] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [x] R:XCEQA~237PA97.11~S 1Zt10/97 od 3 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Polentldly P~tially Unk~ Si~itictnt Mitigati~ No 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the rate and mount of surface nanoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3, Pagc 7-10 and Figure 7-4, Page 7-12; Source 4) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)7 d. Changes in the mount of surface water in any water body? e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g. Alteredditectionorrateof~owofgroundwater? h. Impacts to groundwatcr quality? I. Substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Soume 1, Page 2-29) b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants7 c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors7 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal resuR in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traltic eongcstion? 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? ( ) [1 [] [~ [1 [1 [xl [] [] [] ExI [] [] [] [] Ixl [1 [] [] Ex'I [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [x] [1 [] [x] [1 [] [] [x] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [1 [] [~ [] [1 [1 [1 [] [] [x] [] [1 Exl [1 [1 [] [] [x'l [] [] [1 [~ ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Signi~am Mitigati~ No d. insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bieyclists? ( ) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus nanouts, bicycle rscks)? ( ) g. Rail, waterborne or air Waffle impacts? ( ) 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including) but not lirmted to plants,~sh, insects, animals and birds)? ( ) b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d. Wetlend habitat (e.g. marsh, tipman and vernal pool)? ( ) e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Cenfiiet with adopted energy oonscrvation plans? b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a. Arisk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limitud to: oil, pestleides, chemical or radiation)? b. Possible interferenee with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? d. Exposure ofpeople to existing sourees ofpotential health hazards? e. Increase ~r~ hazard in areas with fiammable brush, R:\CEQA~237P.A97.1ES 11/10/97 ell 5 [1 [x] []. [] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [~ [] [1 [1 [~ [1 [1 [] [x] [] [] [x] [] [] [] [l [x] [] [] [1 [x] [1 [] [1 [x] [1 [1 [] Ix] [] [1 [] [x] [1 [] [1 [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] [~ [] [] [] Pq [] [1 [1 [x] [] [] [] pcJ ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? (Source 1, Page 8-9) b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government service In any ofthe following aress: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c, Schools? d. Mamtenance ofpublicfacilities, mcludingroads? e. Other governmental sonnces? 12. UI'IL[[/~S 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 treatment or disWibution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vis~ or scenic highway? b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c. Create light or glare? CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Disturb palenntological resources? (Source 2, Figure 55, Page 280) 13. 14. Potentially [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [x] [] Ix] Ix] [x] Ix1 [x] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] NO [1 [] [] [] [] [] Ix] [x] [x] [] P, CEQA~237PA97.1ES 12/10/97 cd 6 Si~a~i~eant l~o~lhny NO b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 1,Figure 56. Page 283; Source 5) [] [x] [] [] [] [] [x] [] [] [x] [x] [] [] c, Affecthistofical resources? (Souree l, Page 281; Source 6) [ ] d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect umque ethnic cultural values? ( ) [] e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) [] RECREATION. Would the proposal: a. Increase the demand fur neighborhood or regional parks or other n~rea~onal facilities? ( ) [] [] [] [xq [] [] [] [~ b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNHflCANCE. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the enviroment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below seE-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or arereal 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, ennvn'onmental goals7 [ ] Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). [] [] [] [~ Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] [] [] [x] 17, EARl.liaR ANALYSES, None. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Co~t Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 4. Parcel Map No. 11984 5. Extended Phase I Survey of CA-RIV-4707/H for the Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge, Janua~ 1997 6. Historic Property Survey Repor~ for the Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge, February 1997 R:\CEQAX237PA97.1ES 12/10/97 ~l 7 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use and Pl~ing la, c The project is a general plan amendment and zone change from existing commercial land use designstioas. The environmental impact of the proposed general plan designation and proposed zoning is expected to be less than significant because Neighborhood Commercial zoning already covers a portion of the site, and is proposed to extend along Pala Road only, up to approximately 150 feet from the south property line into the site. Neighborhood Commercial uses already exist on two parcels, and extending such uses along Pala Road totheothertwoparcelswouldhavelessthansigni~eantimpacts. ServieeCommereialzoinngisproposedfor the interior portions of the site, behind the Neighborhood Commercial zone. This area backs up to flood control faeihties on two sides, and will take access across the Neighborhood Commercial uses. The site is crissorossed with building restrictive easements, afanlt lme, walercourse and~ood plain. While the Service Commercial zone may allow more intense commercial uses relative to Neighborhood Commercial and Professional Office zones, habitable buildings will be severely limited to only a few locations on the site. There will be limited, if any, environmental effects due to the limited ability to develop the site. Farmland of Local Importance has been identified to the north and south, areas upon which flood control facilities exist. Farmmg does not eurrently exist in thevieinity, whiehhas been developed with single fsmily homes, golf course facihties and commercial uses. The areas designated as farmland are not within an existing Williamson Act Contract, and it is unlikely that farming operations would commence in the future. The effect of the proposed change in land use designation and zoning is less than siginficant upon agricultural resources or operations. Established communities exist to the east across tlood control facilities, and to the south across Pala Road. However, neither of these communities were designed to expand across to the subject site. Commercial designations already exist on the site. The proposed change in designation and zoning does not disrupt the pattern or physical arrangement of communities. Population and Housing 2a There will be an inorease in the intensity of commercial uses in those areas proposed for Service Commercial zoning. However, the proposal will not add any more square fcomge of commercial uses than what was anticipated under existing commercial land use designations. The impact to local population projections is considered to be less than significant. Geologic Problems 3a,b,c,e, f,g~l Development of the site may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground fallore (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excevation, grading or fill and expansive soils. The site is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. The City's General Plan identifies two active faults in the vicinity, the Wildomar Fault and the Wolf Valley Fault. Parcel Map No. 11984, subdividing the site into four parcels in 1979, identifies a fault line on the site approximately 200 feet from Pals Road. However, acoording the Riverside County Geologist, subsequent geologic studies should be reviewed to determine the validity of the Map findings. Potential impacts will be mitigated by compliance with State of California Alqinst-Pfiolo Special Studies Zone development criteria and construction in accordance with the Uniform Building Code stmaderds. A soils report shall be a requirement of development and shall conhfm recommendations for the compaction of the soft which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground f~ilure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditious from excevation, grading or fill and expansive sods. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of ~proval fur development projects at the site. Potential uns~ble soil conditions from excavation, ~ading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compacfien of the soils. After mitigation measures ~re performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Watt' 4a Development of the site may result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and mount of surface ronoff should development occur as a result of the land use designation and zone change. However, because of the restrictive easements, fault line, water course and flood plain, development is anticipated to be limited. The impact as a result of the change in land use designations is considered less than si~nificant. 4b The General Plan identifies a portion of the site as being within the 100 year flood boundary of T emecula Creek. Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel No. 060742-00 t0-B identifies all but a small portion at the soulhere end of the site as being within Zone AE, and a floodway on the northearn one half. Parcel Map No. 11984 recorded in 1979 confirms the limit of the 100 year flood plain traversing the site approximately in hali~ The Map also identifies a watercourse on the north portion of Parcel 4. Flood control easements already exist along Temecula Creek. As a condition of the underlying parcel map, the watercourse shall be kept flee of all buildings and obslructions in order to convey flood flows. The flood plato shall be kept free of all new dwellmg umts. Given these mifigatinn measures already in place at the site, the project is expected to have less than significant impact exposing people or property to water related hazards. 4c Development of the site may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into suffac~ waters and alterafion of sufface water quality. Devalopment will be required to cornply with the National Pollutsnt Discharge Elimination System CNPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. By this compliance, any potential impacts of development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. 4d,e The proposed change in land use designations will have a less than si~i~cant impact in changes m the mount of surface water in any water body or impact currents, or impact the course or direction of water movements. Because of the restrictive easements, fault line, water course end flood plain, development is anticipated to be limited. The impact as a result of the change in land use designations is considered leas than significant. 4f-h The proposed change in land use designations will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality ofground waters. Because ofthe restrictive easements, fault line, water course and~ood plsin, development is anticipated to be limited. The impact as a result of the change in land use designations is considered less than significant. 4i The proposed change in land use designations will have a less than significant impact in the reduction in the amount of ground water otherwise available for public water supplies. Because of the restrictive easements, fault line, water course and flood plain, development is anticipated to be limited. The impact as a result of the change in land use designations is considered less than significant. Air Oualitv 5a The proposed change in lend use designation will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projeeted air quality violation. Because ofthe restrictive easements, fault line, water course and flood plain, development is anticipated to be limited and well below target floor area ratios of any commercial zone. No sj~oni~eent impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5b,d The project will not expose sensitive recoptors ~ pollutants. There are no sensitive recoptors in proximity to the project. According to the City's Development Code, standards with regards to the genoration of particulate mater, smoke, dust, dirt, ash, odors, toxies and other noxious mailer apply equally to all commemial zones. 5c The pmposcd change in land use designation will not alter air movmeot, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Transportation/Circulation The proposal is located in an area where areawide traffic and circulation improvements have not yet been completed and where oecasional traffic congestion has been identified. Area traffic congestion is expected to significantly improve when these scheduled improvements have been completed. This proposal would shift the General Plan and Zoning designations from one eommemial designation to another. However, it is R:\CEQAX237PA,97.1Fe$ 12/10/97e, d 9 anticipated that because of the limited nature of future development, most sites are siEni~cantly constrained with utility easements and environmental site limitations, that a less than significant impact upon traffic is anticipated. Thepwjectwillhavealessthansigni~cantimpactuponincreasedvehiclelripsorlrsffie congestion. In addition, the Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge Improvement Project will widen Pala Road from two to four lanes, raplace the existing bridge, and improve tornrag movements at the intersection of State Highway 79 South. This project is anticipated to improve traffic flow and safety in this area. Of the three alternative ali~tmments forthe Improvement Pwject, Alternative 1A was chosen bssed on engineering, safety considerations, and environmental constraints. The Bridge Improvement Project is scheduled for consauction mearly 1998. The project will have aless than signifieant impactupon inoreased vehicle trips or traffc 6d. Future development will be conditioned to provide sufficient parking capacity in accordance with the City's Development Code. With proper mitigation measures, future development is not anticipa~d to cause significant impacts as a result of this project. Biological Resources 7.all The site is located adjacent to Temecula Creek and includes four partially disturbed properties that range from mostly developed to undeveloped. The two middle parcels have been mostly developed. The most southerly parcel is vacant and covered by non-native grass and tree species. The most northerly parcel may contain some weftand species. However, this site will also be substantively impacted by the relocation and replacement of the Pala Road Bridge. According to the Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge Improvement Project Weft and Mitigation Plan, both temporary and permanent impacts of the Bridge Improvement Project have been mitigated as part of that project. Any additional, and relatively minor, impacts will be ~daressed when specific development proposals are submitted. The future development proposals will receive appropriately detailed environmental review. As a result, no additional impacts are anticipated at this time. Enermr and Mineral Resources 8.a. The project will not impact and/or confilet with adopted ener~ conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws per~ining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. The project will result in a less than significant hntmct for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient itmnner. While there wll] 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, b,mher) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significsnt. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the realdents of the State are located at this project site. No signi~cam impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. H~ar& The project will not result in a significant impact due to risk of explosion, or the release of any h~-Jntous substances in the event of an accident or upset couditions since none are prol0osed in the request. While some reOlil uses may have the potential to sell h~-,,,xlous substances, they are regulated by both the Fire Depanment and the Depamnent of Environmema! Health. Future development mmmt receive clearance from the Deluifanent of Environmental Health prior to any plan check submittal. Future development rn~mt receive clearance from the Fire Depa~ment prior to the issuance of a building permit. This applies to storage and use of ~u,,J,'dous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQAX.?.37PA97.1ES 1~/10/97 ~d 10 9.b. The project will not interf~-e with an en~rgeacy r~pons~ plan or an ~n~rgmcy ~vahiation plan. The subject site is not locatod in an area which could impact an en~rgeacy response plan. The project will take access from m~i.talnecl strips and will thsrefore not impede any emorgency rl~pon~e or emerglmcy evacuation plans. No significant impacts are antici~,~ as a result of this project. The project will no~ result in the creation of any health hazard or podfill health b,,-,,~i. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable he~.lth laws during the plan check stage. No pennit~ will be issued unless the project is found to be consisteat with these applicable laws. Reference response 9.a. No significant i~.c~ are maicipatod as a result of ~ project. 9.d. The project will not expose people to exiating sources of pote~ial health h~,.~ls. No health h~7~,-ds are known to be within pro,lmlty of the project. No signScant impacts are anticipated as a result of th~s project. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with ~,,mmahle brush, grass, or trees. The project is in an area of existing uses m:l proposed commercial uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire l~,rd area. No significant impacts are micilmted as a result of this project. Noise The proposal will result in a less than signfficant hicrease to existing noise levels. The site is p4u~ially vacant and development of the h~d logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increasas to noise in the area over the long rim. However, the project site is adjacent to Pala Road, designated as a alx-hne urban afierinl roadway. Ambient noise levels 100 feet from conterline are 61.9 to 62.6 CNEL According to the City's General Plan, it is appropr~e to place insensitive land uses such as commercial adjacent to noise generators such as highways. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similsx to existing and proposed uses in the area. Noise impacts are anticipated to be lass than significant as a result of this project in either the short or long-~rm. lO.b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the developmentJcomtruction phase (shor~ run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 fee~ which is considered very annoying and can cause heating damage from steady 8-hour exposure, Tbis source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered si~oni~cant. There will be no long-torm exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Public Services 11 .a,b. The pwject will have a less than significant impact upon, or t~ult in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The pwject will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the cost of maintenance of service provision from these entities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. ll.d. The project will have a less than si~ifieant impact for the maintenance of pubhc facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is dis~buted to me City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of wads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. ll.e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQAX237PA97.1ES 12/10/97 cd ] ] Utilities and Service Systems The project will not result in a need for new syst~n'ts or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No si~ifieant impa~ts 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 commumcation systems (~ferenee ms'ponse No. 12.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.c. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatnxent 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 samta~ sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an meremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR furlher states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not sieni~canfly impact wastewater sentices (p. 40).' It is anticipated that the proposal to change the designation from Office to Corninertial, and the limited nature of future development under this designation, would not significantly metease the demand for systems or supplies. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.e. Future development may require additional storm water drainage facilities onsite. However, beeanse this project is a change in General Plan and Zoning designations from one commercial category to another, no specific development proposals are being proposed at this time. Any specific development proposal would receive an appropriately detailed environmental review. No significant impacts are anticipated at this time. 12.f The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts ~'om solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No signitieant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.g. Thepr~jectwi~~n~tresu~tinaneedf~rnewsystemsorsupplies~orsubstantialalterati~nst~~cealorregi~nal water supplies. Refertrace msponsu 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Aesthetics 13.a. The City does not have any designated scenic highways. However, future developments on the site will be reviewed to ensure that project design provides appropriate aesthetic benefits in accordance with the City' s Development Code and Design Guldelines. Nosil~ifieantimpectsareantieipatedasaresultofthisproject. 13.b. The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The pwject, as pwposed, is iraended to encourage neighborhood commercial uses and appearance along Pala Road, and would locate more intense scnaoc commercial usus on the intefior portion ofthe site. It is antidpated that this layout will require a more neighborhood character in terms of building scale and design and in t~,ms of landscaping adjacent to Pala Road to make future development more compatible with the surrounding area. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated. 13.c. The project will have a potentially signiticsut impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palornar Observato~t. Future development will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). With mitigation mere no si~ni~cant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 14.b. The General Plan identifies a sensitive archaeological area at the intersection of State Highway 79 South and Pala Road, which may extend to the subjact site. An Extended Phase I (XphI) Investigation was performed dated January 1997 for the T emeeula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge confuming the location of two potential R:\CEQAX237PA97.mS 1~1~ d 12 concen~yations of artifacts in close proximity to State Highway 79. The also study indicated that, expect for one partially disturbed site, the southerly properties did not have any identified si~m~ifieant cultural deposits. The results of the investigation recommended further studies. A Phase II Evaluation of Archaeological Site CA-RIV-4707/H was prepared in January 1997 which concluded that both the historic component and prehistoric components were not eligible for the National Register. Due to the potential for additional deposits in the area, future development of the proposed site will be required to continue the investigation for axlffacts in site specific aress. The potential for future signi~cant impacts will be detemuned and fully mitigated when future development proposals are onnsidered. 14.c. The project will not have an impact on historical resources. As noted in the Historic Property Survey Report completed for the Temecula Creek (Pala Road) Bridge in Februmy 1997, properties in the area of the Pala Road Bridge were deterwaned ineligible for inclusion in the National Register or the California Register of Historic Resources, and no locally designated landmarks were identified. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result fithis project. 14.d. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. Relegate response lzLb,e. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e. The project may restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. See Response 14.b. Recreation 15.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. Theprojectwillnotcausesignificantnumbersofpenpletoreloeatewithinorto the City of Temecula. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opporVanities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\CEQA~237PA.97.1E$ l~t10/97ed ATTACHMENT NO. 6 PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6,doc 44 PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The purpose of this preliminary analysis is to compare, on a General Plan level, the relative potential traffic impacts of the proposed creation of Planned Development Ove~ay District No. 1. The analysis uses the standard trip generation provisions from the General Plan Traffic Study and standard General Plan lot coverage assumptions. This analysis is not intended to provide a site specific or land use specific analysis of future traffic impacts. It is intended to provide a General Plan level of analysis of the proposal. This analysis was prepared using the following standard assumptions. 1. The lot areas identified on the current Riverside County Assessor's Maps. Lot area is convened to square footage of buildings based upon the following Floor Area Ratio targets: 0.25 for Neighborhood Commemial, 0.5 for Professional Office, and 0.1 for the Service Commercial in the unbuildable easement area. (Using this lower FAR is intended to simulate the relatively limited daily trip generation attributable to outdoor storage uses in Situation No. 3.) The square footage estimates are rounded to the nearest one hundred square feet. Based upon information taken from the traffic generation analysis used for the preparation of the General Plan. The Professional Office rate is the average between Commemial Office (14 trips per 1,000 square feet) and Medical Office (33.7 trips per 1,000 square feet). Calculated by multiplying the square footage of the future buildings by the trip generation rate. Final results are rounded to the nearest ten trips. \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNJNG\STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doC 45 SITUATION 1 - CLrRRENT GENERAL PLAN ZONE Neighborhood Commercial Professional Office T()T.\I. S HTDY ARF.\ AREA IN SQ. FT. OF ACRES BUILDING GENERATION RATE (Per 1000 Sq. Ft.) 2.41 26,200 64.3 9.75 212,400 23.9 ~ ."'~':~':;"-~ · ~,. ~i; ~ '~;d"'~,~ ,,.' "' L'.,'.',~ ,; ~., , ~ .',.~..,.~.-,._' i! ...' . TOTAL TRIPS PER DAY 1,690 5,080 SITUATION 2 - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE Neighborhood Commercial TOTAL STUDY- AREA AREA IN SQ. FT. OF ACRES BUILDING GENERATION RATE (Per 1000 Sq. Ft.) 12.16 132,400 64.3 12.16 TOTAL TRIPS PER DAY 8,510 8,510 SITUATION 3 - ADJUSTED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE Neighborhood Commercial Easements Areas AREA IN SQ. FT. OF ACRES BUILDING GENERATION RATE (Per 1000 Sq. Ft.) 9.58 104,300 64.3 2.58 "11,100" 9.2 TOTAL TRIPS PER DAY 6,710 100 TOTAL STUDY AREA 6,810 \\TEMEC_FS201 \DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doc 46 ATI'ACHMENT NO. 7 EXHIBITS \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\237PA97.PC6.doc 47 CITY OF TEMECULA SITE CASE NUMBER: PA97-0237 EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 15, 1997 VICINITY MAP CITY OF TEMECULA '1 IT SITE 5P EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) OS HTC 0 \ os . SITE /-'--' / LM . 0 LM /' L EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL {CC) CASE NUMBER: PA97-0237 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 15, 1997 ITEM #6 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION December 2, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment) and Planning Application No. PA98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810) Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment) and PA98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810); and ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No, PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment) and PA98- 0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810); and ADOPT Resolution No. 98- recommending to the City Council approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment) and PA98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810); based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report, public testimony received at the public hearing, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Leah Taylor REPRESENTATIVE: Larry Markham, Markham & Associates PROPOSAL: The subdivision of 7.31 acres into 78 single family lots (including product review) and two open space/park lots, and a Zoning Amendment from High Density Residential to a PDO (Planned Development Oveday) zoning classification. LOCATION: The south side of Margarita Road approximately 1,400 feet east of Moraga Road. EXISTING ZONING: H (High Density) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: LM (Low Medium Density Residential) H (High Density Residential) M (Medium Density Residential) H (High Density) R:\staffrpt~397&398pc(R¢cvd)..doc vgw 11/25/98 I PROPOSED ZONING: PDO (Planned Development Overlay Zone) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: H (High Density Residential) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: PROJECT STATISTICS North: Existing detached, single family residential development. South: An approved apartment complex under construction. East: An approved condominium project, and further east is an existing single family residential development. West: An apartment complex currently under construction. Total Area: 7.31 (gross) acres and 7.23 (net) acres Total Site Area: Number of Units Per Acre Allowed in the High-Density Residential zone: 13-20 per acre Number of Units provided within the Proposed PDO: 11 per acre Parking Required: 2 spaces/unit Parking Provided: 2 spaces/unit and 16 guest parking spaces Square Footages: Building Height: Plan 1: Plan 2: Plan 3: Plan 4: 1,807 square feet 1,802 square feet 2,014 square feet 1,902 square feet Twenty Eight Feet (28') Twenty Six Feet (26') Thirty Two Feet (32') Twenty Eight, Six Inches (28'-6") BACKGROUND Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment) and Planning Application No. PA98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810) was submitted to the Planning Department on September 24, 1998. The application was scheduled for a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting on October 15, 1998. The project was deemed complete on November 4, 1998. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is for the subdivision of 7.31 acres into 78 single family lots (including product review) and two open space/park lots (PA No. 98-0398), and a Zoning Amendment from High Density Residential to a PDO (Planned Development Overlay) zoning classification (PA No. 98-0398 Tentative Tract Map 28810). R:\staffrpt\397&398pc(Recvd)..doc vgw 11/25/98 2 ANALYSIS Site DesiGn The existing zoning of the subject site is H (High Density Residential) which is intended to allow multi-family development at a density range of 13 - 20 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing a reduction in density to develop small, detached single family parcels to accommodate zero lot line homes. The zero lot line homes are all two stodes and range from 1,802 to 2,014 square feet with small rear and back yards. Plans 2 and 4 provide a gated ddveway that serves as a fenced front yard use area. The internal roads are pdvate and include sidewalks on one side of the street to allow internal pedestrian circulation throughout the development. Although the minimum number of units per acre in the H (High Density Residential) zone is 13, the proposed PDO (Planned Development Oveday) zoning allows a reduction in density to 11 units per acre. Pursuant to the Development Code Chapter 17.22, Planned Development Oveday, the PDO allows modification to the underlying development standards to allow greater flexibility in reaching goals and policies of the General Plan, and requires City Council approval to modify the zoning map. In addition, the applicant has submitted modified development standards (see Exhibit G) to accommodate the proposed zero lot line structures. The "Planned Development Overlay" (Exhibit H) which illustrates the building envelopes for each lot is also being proposed. The building envelopes have been established to allow the addition of patio or shade structures. The project will be conditioned for all accessory structures to be located within the building envelope, as depicted on Exhibit H). The subject parcel is an in-fill lot, as it is the last piece of property to receive development approval in the immediate area. The amenities for the development include a passive park Ioceted at the northeast corner and a park in the interior of the development that has a pool, a club house and a tot lot. The project will also be conditioned to submit an acoustical study prior to the issuance of grading permits to determine noise levels generated by future build-out traffic conditions. The study shall include mitigation measures to reduce noise levels to ensure compliance with General Plan noise level standards for residential units potentially impacted from the traffic noise along Margarita Road. Access, Traffic and Circulation The project will take access from one entrance off of Margadta Road that is restricted to right in/right out only. There is one private road that provides circulation throughout the development. The project access and circulation is complies with the City's Development Code, General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. Therefore, the project is consistent with the existing traffic patterns in the area. Architecture The proposed project offers four different elevations which have a country influence. The side and rear elevations have been enhanced from the initial submittal with the addition of window treatments. The proposed structures are very similar to the detached condominiuro project that was approved by the Planning Commission on August 5, 1998. The proposed homes also serve as a good transitional development between the apartments to the south and west, the detached condominiums to the east, and detached single family residential developments to the north and further east. Staff feels the proposed development is a high quality design that is very compatible with the surrounding development in terms of density, site design, product type, colors and materials, and bulk and mass. R:~staffrptx397&398pc(Recvd)..doc vgw 11/25/98 3 Landscapin~l A passive park is proposed to be located at the northeast corner or the development. In addition, the project proposes a park in the interior of the development with a club house and a tot lot. Due to the small size of the lots, the applicant is proposing modified landscape standards that are appropdate for the small, zero lot line parcels. Minimum front yard landscaping includes a small lawn area, a vadety of shrubs, a 15 gallon street tree (Fern Pine) and a one (1)15 gallon accent tree (Red Crepe Myrtle). Staff feels the landscaping standards as illustrated on the conceptual landscape plan are appropriate and in proper proportion to the size of the lots. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation and current zoning for the site is H (High Density Residential). A Planned Development Overlay (PDO) Zone which reduces the minimum density is permitted pursuant to Chapter 17.22 of the Development Code, and a Tentative Tract Map (including product review) is permitted pursuant to compliance with the City's Subdivision Ordinance No. 460 and the City's Design Guidelines. The project, as proposed, is consistent with the Development Code, General Plan and Design Guidelines. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project consists of the subdivision of 7.31 acres into 78 single family lots (including product review) and two open space/park lots (PA No. 98-0398). and a Zoning Amendment from High Density Residential to a PDO (Planned Development Overlay) zoning classification (PA No. 98-0398 Tentative Tract Map 28810). The PDO allows the property to be developed below the minimum density of the existing High Density Residential Zoning classification (13-20 units per acre) to a density of 11 units per acre. The site proposes one point of access from Margarita Road and provides internal access throughout the site. The proposed product is ven/compatible with the surrounding area in terms of site layout, product type, colors and matedais, and bulk and mass. FINDINGS - Tentative Tract Map 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. That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The proposed land division of the project is consistent with the City's General Plan target land use designation and therefore meets the goals and policies of the General Plan. R:~staffrpt\397&398pc(Recvd).,doc vgw 11/25/98 4 That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City Standards.. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. The physical characteristics of the site (topography, drainage, access, etc.) was specifically designed to accommodate the proposed land division as the subject site is an in-fill lot with a slightly irregular shape. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. The project site is an in-fill lot with an irregular shape. The proposed density was specifically determined as a result of the physical characteristics of the lot (shape, topography, etc.). As a result, the proposed development is proposing a reduction in density to 11 units per acre instead of the 13-20 units per acre, which is permitted under the existing High Density zoning classification, The proposed reduction in density is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation target density. That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The Biological reporl submitted with the project stated that there is not fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife or habitat off-site. The project is conditioned to obtain all necessary permits and or clearances from the applicable environmental agencies. It is determined that the project, as conditioned, will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. That the design of the proposed land division or the types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City Standards. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquirad by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. The project will take access from Margadta Road. and will not obstruct any easements. FINDINGS - Zoning Amendment That the proposed Zoning Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The project was designed and is conditioned to comply with all City Ordinances, Development Code, CityWide Design Guidelines and the General Plan. Therefore, as condition, the project will be compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. That the proposed Zoning Amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and polides of the General Plan which allows for flexibility in the zoning to allow a range of transitions of densities. R:\staffrpt\397&398pcCRecvd)..do~ vgw 11/25198 5 The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed project is very similar to the recently approved condominium project to the east. The project serves as a good transitional developmen! as there are apartments to the south and west, detached condominiums to the east, and detached single family residential developments to the north and further east. Staff feels the proposed development is a high quality design that is very compatible with the surrounding development in terms of density, site design, product type, colors and materials, and bulk and mass. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, as the project is very compatible to the existing developments in terms of density, site design, product type, colors and materials and bulk and mass. The changes proposed in the Zoning Amendment represent a decrease in the density from High Density Residential to PDO (Planned Development Overly) and will not increase the impacts associated with the proposed tentative tract map or subsequent future development of the property. Attachments: PC Resolution Approving Tentative Tract Map 28810 - Blue Page 7 A. Conditions of Approval- Blue Page 11 PC Resolution Approving the Zoning Amendment - Blue Page 19 A. Draft City Council Ordinance recommending Approval of Zoning Amendment - Blue Page 22 Initial Study - Blue Page 26 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 27 Exhibits - Blue Page 28 B, C D. E. F. G. H. V!cinity Map General Plan Map Zoning Map Site Plan Landscape Plan Elevations Development Standards Planned Development Oveday (With Approved Building Envelopes) R:\staffrptL397&398pc(Recvd)..doc vgw 11/25/98 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98 - R:\staffq~t~397&398pc(Recvd)..doc vgw 11/25/98 7 ATTACHMENTNO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98- 0398 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28810) FOR THE SUBDMSION OF 7.31 ACRES INTO 78 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS (INCLUDING PRODUCT REVIEW) AND TWO OPEN SPACE/PARK LOTS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 7.31 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,400 FEET EAST OF MORAGA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-370- 004. WHEREAS, Leah Taylor filed Planning Application No. PA98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810); and in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810); and was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810); on December 2, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Ptanning Application No. PA98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810); 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. Findin,qs. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810); makes the following findings; to wit: A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is consistent with all City Ordinances including: the City's Development Code, Ordinance No. 655 (Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and the City's Water Efficient Landscaping provisions. B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. R:\staffrptX397&398pc(Recvd)..doc vgw 11/25/98 8 C. 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 not been recently graded or disturbed. The biological assessment (dated September 1998) submitted with the project states that there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare. threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. The report also states that there is no indication that any wildlife species exist, or that the site serves as a migration corridor. D. That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. E. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans, of development. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type G. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. H. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. I. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. 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, therefore, is hereby adopted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810) for the subdivision of 7.31 acres into 78 single family lots (including product review) and two open space/park lots with associated parking and landscaping on a proposed parcol containing acres 7.31 acres located on the south side of Margadta Road approximately 1,400 feet east of Moraga Road, known as Assessors Parcel No. 921-370-004 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of December, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chairperson R:Xstaffrpt\397&398pc(Recvd)..doc vgw 11125/98 9 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 December 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:Xst~ffrpl\397&.398pc(Recvd)..cloc vgw 11/25/98 10 ATTACHMENT 1 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\stafftptX397&398pc(Recvd)..doc vgw 11/25/98 11 EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment) and PA98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810) Project Description: Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment) from High Density Residential to a PDO (Planned Development Overlay) zoning classification and PA98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810) for the subdivision of 7.31 acres into 78 single family lots (including product review) and two open space/park lots with associated parking and landscaping on a proposed parcel containing acres 7.31 acres located on the south side of Margarita Road approximately 1,400 feet east of Moraga Road. Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-370-O04 Approval Date: December 2, 1998 Expiration Date: December 2, 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division .a_ cashiers check or money order made payable to the County Clenk in the amount of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). General Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the COnditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to indemnity, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions. awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, conceming the Planning R:~staffrpt~397&398pc(Recvd)..doc vgw 11/25/98 12 Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasinq plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director, The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program. The project shall comply with the Planned Development Oveday (PDO) development standards, approved building envelopes (Exhibit H) and the approved Landscape Plan (Exhibit E). All standards not addressed within the PDO standards shall be subject to the City of Temecula's Development Code, City-Wide Design Guidelines and General Plan. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. + The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. The applicant shall submit a cultural resource management report following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation. With the mitigation measures, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 10. The applicant shall submit an acoustical study to determine the noise levels associated with future build-out traffic conditions. The study shall include mitigation measures to reduce noise levels that comply with the General Plan noise level standards for residential units. All mitigation measures shall be in place prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the affected units Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 11. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: 1 ) This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) R:\sk~ffrpt\397&398pc(Recvd)..doc vgw 11/25/98 13 1) CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, fence ownership and repair responsibilities, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways, 2) No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity. and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. 3) Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 12. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. 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: 1) Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). 2) One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. 3) Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). 4) Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved plan). 5) Automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property for: a. Front yards and slopes within individual lots pdor to issuance of building permits for any lot(s). Private common areas prior to issuance of the first building permit. R:~staffrptX397&398pc(R¢cvd)..doc vgw 11/25/98 14 All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Sen/ices Distdct (TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall include, but may not be limited to pdvate slopes and common areas. Shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a public right-of-way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger. 6) Hardscaping for the following: a. Pedestrian trails within pdvate common areas Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans showing the height, location and the following matedais for all walls and fences: 1) Decorative block for the perimeter of the project adjacent to a Public Right- of-Way equal to sixty-six (66) feet or larger and the side yards for corner lots. The wall along Margarita Road and the corner lots shall be screened so that the visible portion of the wall is no more six (6) feet. 2) Wrought iron or decorative block and wrought iron combination to take advantage of views for side and rear yards. 3) Wood fencing shall be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not restricted by a and b above. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including al! structural setback measurements. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Director approval. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 13. If deemed necessary by the Planning Manager, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. 14. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be propedy constructed and in good working order. 15. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection. 16. Private common area landscaping shall be completed for inspection prior to issuance of the last occupancy permit (excluding the model home conversion). 17. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released. R:\staffrpt\397&398pc(Recvd)..doc vgw 11125/98 15 18. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 19. Memorandum dated November 19, 1998, from the Department of Public Works stating the conditions of approval is incorporated herein and made a part of this approval. COMMUNITYSERVICES DEPARTMENT 20. All common slope areas. parkway landscaping, walls, private parks and interior residential street lighting shall be maintained by a private Homeowners Association (HOA). 21. Prior to installation of arterial street lighting on Margarita Road, the applicant or his assignee shall pay the appropriate fees for the dedication and transfer of said street lights into the TCSD maintenance program. 22 A Class II bike lane shall be identified on the street improvement plans and completed in concurrence with the street improvements. 23. Construction of the landscaped median on Margarita Road shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude the acceptance of this area into the TCSD maintenance program. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE MAP: 24. The deveJoper shall satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirement through the payment of in-lieu fees equivalent to .51 acres of parkland. Said requirement includes a 50% credit for two (2) private park facilities to be constructed within the development. The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be calculated by multiplying the required amount of parkland by the City's then current appraised land valuation as established by the City Manager. 25. Landscape construction plans for the raised median within Margadta Road shall be reviewed and approved by the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 26. It shall be the developers responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers, FIRE DEPARTMENT 27. 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. R:\staffrpt\397&398pc(Recvd)_doc vgw 11/25/98 16 28. 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 standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 29. 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) 30. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (UFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Ord 460) 31. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection pdor to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 32. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 70,000 Ibs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 33. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15) 34. 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) All curbs on 24 foot wide streets to be painted red with white lettering "No Parking CVC 22500.1" or approved signage. 35. Pdor 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) 36. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (UFC902.2.1) Because of the limitations placed on this project and limited frontage, the width of mad on each side of the entrance medium shall be a minimum of 24 feet clear width in lieu of the normally required second access. 37. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency pdor 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) R:\staffrptL397&.398pc(Recvd)..doc vgw 11/25/9~ 28. 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 standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) on a looped system shall be located on fire access roads and adjacent to public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to an hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 29. 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) 30. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul- de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (UFC 902.2.2.2.3 and Ord 460) 31. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection pdor to any building construction. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) 32. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 70,000 Ibs GVW. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 33. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 70,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( UFC sec 902 and ~rd 95-15) 34. 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) All curbs on 24 foot wide streets to be painted red with white lettering "No Parking CVC 22500.1" or approved signage. 35. 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) 36. Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (UFC902.2.1) Because of the limitations placed on this project and limited frontage, the width of road on each side of the entrance medium shall be a minimum of 24 feet clear width in lieu of the normally required second access. 37. Pnor to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer, contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (UFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) R:\staffrpt~397&398pc(Recvd)..d~ vffw 11/25/98 17 38. 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) 39. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a directory display monument sign shall be required for apartment, condominium, townhouse or mobile home parks. Each complex shall have an illuminated diagrammatic layout of the complex which indicates the name of the complex, all streets, building identification, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. Location of the sign and design specifications shall be submitted to and be approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau prior to installation. 40. 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) BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit 41. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees. OTHER AGENCIES 42. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittals dated October 6, 1998 copies of which are attached. 43. The appli_cant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water Districrs transmittal October 5, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 44. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Transportation transmittal dated October 19, 1998, a copy of which is attached. 45. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in Eastern Information Centers transmittal dated October 30, 1998 a copy of which is attached. 46. Memo dated November 19, 1998, from the Department of Public Works, stating conditions of approval are incorporated herein and made a part of this approval. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Signature R:\staffrpt\397&398pc(Recvd)..doc vgw 11/25/98 18 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM ~ Anders, Assistant Planner Annie Bostre-Le Assistant Engineer mber 19, 1'998 '~DDepartment of Public Works Conditions of Approval for: Tentative Tract Map No. 28810 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. General Requirements It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works pdor to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 5. The vehicular movement for Private Drive "C" shall be restricted to right in/right out. Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed and securities posted: As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive wdtten clearance from the following agencies: · San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board · Rancho California Water Distdct · Eastern Municipal Water District · Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District · City of Temecula Fire Bureau R:\LANDDEV\COAXSUBDIV\TR28810.DOC · Planning Department · Department of Public Works · Riverside County Health Department · Cable TV Franchise · Community Services District · General Telephone · Southern California Edison Company · Southern California Gas Company · Fish & Game · Army Corps of Engineers The Developer shall design, construct and install the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works: Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standards - 110' RAN) to include 11 feet dedication of street dght-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14 foot raised landscaped median. b= A continuous 14 foot wide raised landscaped median on Margarita Road from the westerly property boundary (Tuscany Ridge Apartments - Tract 3334 Lot 27) to the eastedy property boundary (Tentative Tract Map No. 28850). The Developer can receive Development Impact Fee credits for the other half of the raised landscaped median. AlLstreet improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections. d. Storm drain facilities e. All utilities shall be undergrounded Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. b. Driveway shall conform to the applicable City Standard No. 207A. C= Street light shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with Ordinance No. 461. Concrate sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties. f. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. R:\LANDDEV\COA~SUBDIV~TRZBB10.DOC 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable Tv shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as requireFJ where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and reviewed by the Department of PUblic Works for any street closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works. Relinquish and waive rights of access to and from Margarita Road on the Final Map with the exception of the one opening as delineated on the appreved Tentative Tract Map. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City Council approval of the final map, the Developer shall make an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. An Envir0~mental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. R:\LANDDEV\COAXSUBDIV~TR28810.DOC 19. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc,, shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary, All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easement~ shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 20. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: · San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board · Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District · Planning Department · Department of Public Works 21. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecuia standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion. 22. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engine .e_red structures and preliminary pavement sections. 23. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identity storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. 24. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 25. The Developer shall post secudty 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. 26. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct by either cashier s check or money order, pdor to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan R:\LANDDEV\COA~SUBDIV\TR28810.DOC 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. 27. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. 28. All lot drainage shall be directed to the ddveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 29. Final Map shall be approved and recorded. 30. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 31. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and accepted grading construction practices, The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan. 32. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06, Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 33. 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 All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 34. 35. 36. R:\IANDDEV\COAXSUBDIV\TR28810.DOC T~e~day klovectlDer 17, 1998 ]:OSpm -- From '955890]' -- Page ZI 11/17/lcJ98 14:47 9558983 C.o/3 P/¥SE 82/83 County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL FROM: Ci i ~ OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: October6, 1998 1. The Department of Envlronmental Health has r~vlewed this Change of Zone No. PA9R-0397 and ha~ no obje, ction~. ~ Sanilary sewer and water services should be available in this arr~k CH:dr (909) 955-8980 Tuesday November 17, 1998 3:0513111 -- From ~g558903' -- Page 3i ' 11/17/1998 14:47 9558903 CAC PAGE 03/83 FROM County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONIvIENTAL HEALTH DATE: October 6, 1998 CITY OF TEMBCULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 28810 (PA98-0398) The Department of Environmental Health is unable to submit tentative recomme. ndations until receipt of the requested supplemental information concerning water aod sewer availability. CH:dt (909) 955-8980 ?Tuesday Novelffier 17, 1998 2:3/.1m~" From ,909 69/. 9175' -- Page ZI [~002 11/11'/98 t4:23 FAX_ 909 694 9175 I~CWI) E~TGIINIg~ING October 5 1998. Ms. Patty Anders, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Depa.r~ment 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 SUBJECT: WATER AVAILABILITY TRACT NO. 28810 APN 921-370-o04 PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0398 Dear Ms. Anders: Please be advised that the above-nBferenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. 4t may be necessary for the developer to extend on-site and off-site water facilities to adequately service this developmenL If fire protection is required, the developer will need to contact RCVVD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing. an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this o~ce_ Sincerely. RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager c: Laude William. Engineering Services Supervisor STA'I~ OF CAUFORNIA - BUSINESS. TRANSPORTk., ~ON AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8, 414 W. 4th STREET, 6th FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401-1400 PETE W~LSON, Governor October 19, 1998 08-Riv-15-5.38 Ms. Patty Anders Assistant Planner 43200 Business Park Drive PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Dear Ms. Anders: Planning Application 98-0397 We have reviewed the above referenced documents and request consideration of the following comments: Caltrans supports economic growth and orderly land use development; however, new development must pay its fair share for upgrading infrastructure facilities needed to serve the development. This infrastructure includes State highways and freeways. It also includes both direct and cumulative traffic impacts. All jurisdictions should take measures available to fund improvements and reduce total trips generated. In view of the fact there are limited funds available for infrastructure improvements, we recommend the City of Temecula take the lead in developing a fair-share mechanism in which each project can fund improvements for the decrease in Level of Service (LOS) for which it is responsible. · Please send a copy of the Plot/Site plan for this proposal. · Additional comments may be forthcoming upon receipt and review of this site. Ms. Patty ,~nders October 19, 1998 Page 2 if you have any questions, please contact Garrett Miyahira at (909) 383-6212 or FAX (909) 383-5936. Sincerely, LINDA GRIMES, Chief Office of Regional Planning/ Forecasting/Publ ic Transportation CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM E,,~tern Irlforlllltlon Center Department of Anthropdogy University of California Riverside, CA 92521-0418 Phone {909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 October 30, 1998 Patty Anders City of Temecula Planning Department P. O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Case No.: Applicant: PA98-0397CZ/PA98-0398TR 12ah Taylor Dear Ms. Anders: Please find enclosed our comments for one project transmittal as requested by the Planning Department. If you have any questions, please contact the Eastern Information Center at (909) 787-5745. PA98-0397/PA98-0398 ................................ Oct. 30, 1998 Sincerely, Martha Smith Information Officer Enclosure(s) CALIFORNIA tlISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM Eastern InformatJon Center Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside, CA 92521-0418 Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909} 787-5409 CULTURAl, RESOURCE REVIEW Recot ds at the Eastern information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: ._~The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to known cultural resource(s). A Phase I study is recommended. Based upon cxisting data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural resources. A Phase I ~tudy is recommended. __ A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # ) identified one or more cultural resourccs. The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. However, duc to the nature of the project or prior data rocovery studies, an adverse effect on cultural resourct. s is not anticipated. Further study is not recommended. A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # )idcnti~ed no cultural resources. Further study is not recommended. There is a low probability of cultural resources. Furlher study is not recommended. If, during construction, cultural resources are cncountcred, work should bc halted or diverted in the immediate area w'njJc a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations. Due to the archaeological sensitivity ofthc area, earthmoving during construction should bc monitored by a professional archaeologist. y'//Thc submission of a cultural resource management r~pon is recommended foliowing guidelines for Archaeological Rcsourec Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation, Preservation Planning Bulletin 4(a), December 1989. Phase I Phase Ii Phase III Phase IV Records search and field survey Testing [Evaluate resource significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant' sites.] Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of ffic two.I Monitor earthmoving activities COMMENTS: If you have any questions, please contact us. Eastern Information Center EIC~FRM$~TRAN$MIT ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ZONING AMENDMENT R:\staffrptX397&.398pc(P, ecvd)..doc vgw 11/25/98 19 ATTACHMENTNO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA PA98-0397 (ZONING AMENDMENT) FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO A PDO (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) ZONING CLASSIFICATION ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 7.31 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,400 FEET EAST OF MORAGA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR°S PARCEL NO. 921- 370-O04. WHEREAS, Leah Taylor filed Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment) was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment) on December 2, 1998, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment); 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 recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment), makes the following findings, to wit: 1. Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment), as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The project was designed and is conditioned to comply with all City Ordinances, Development Code, City-Wide Design Guidelines and the General Plan. Therefore, as condition, the project will be compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2 Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment) is consistent with the City's General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan which allows for flexibility in the zoning to allow a range of transitions of densities. R:Xslaffrpl\397&398pcCRecvd)..doc vgw 11/25/98 20 3. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed project is very similar to the recently approved condominium project to the east. The project serves as a good transitional development as there are apartments to the south and west, detached condominiums to the east, and detached single family residential developments to the north and further east. Staff feels the proposed development is a high quality design that is very compatible with the surrounding development in terms of density, site design, product type, Colors and materials, and bulk and mass. 5. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, as the project is very compatible to the existing developments in terms of density, site design, product type, colors and materials and bulk and mass. 5. The changes proposed in the Zoning Amendment represents a decrease in the density from High Density Residential to PDO (Planned Development Overly) and will not increase the impacts associated with the proposed tentative tract map or subsequent future development of the property. 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, therefore, is hereby adopted. Section 4. Approval. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby reCommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance substantially in the form contained in Exhibit A. Section 5. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA98~0397 (Zoning Amendment) from High Density Residential to a PDO (Planned Development Oveday) zoning classification substantially in the from contained herein on property generally located on the south side of Margarita Road approximately 1,400 feet east of Moraga Road, known as Assessors Parcel No. 921-370-004, subject to the following conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of December, 1998. Marcia Slaven, Chairman I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of December, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: R:\staffrpl\397&398pc(Recvd)..doc vgw 11/25/98 Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary 2] EXHIBIT "A" DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING AMENDMENT \\TEMEC_FS201XDATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFF~397&398FC(Rgcvd)..doc 22 EXHIBIT"A" ORDINANCE NO. ge-__ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98- 0397 (ZONING AMENDMENT) TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO A PDO (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY) ZONING CLASSIFICATION ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 7.31 ACRES, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,400 FEET EAST OF MORAGA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-370-004. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. The City Council in approving Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment ), makes the following findings, to wit: 1. Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment), as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The project was designed and is conditioned to comply with all City Ordinances, Development Code, City-Wide Design Guidelines and the General Plan: Therefore, as condition, the project will be compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. 2. Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment) is consistent with the City's General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan which allows for flexibility in the zoning to allow a range of transitions of densities. 3. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed project is very similar to the recently approved condominium project to the east. The project serves as a good transitional development as there are apartments to the south and west, detached condominiums to the east, and detached single family residential developments to the north and further east. Staff feels the proposed development is a high quality design that is very compatible with the surrounding development in terms of density, site design, product type, colors and materials, and bulk and mass. 4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, as the project is very compatible to the existing developments in terms of density, site design, product type. colors and materials and bulk and mass. 5. The changes proposed in the Zoning Amendment represents a decrease in the density from High Density Residential to PDO (Planned Development Ovedy) and will not increase the impacts associated with the proposed tentative tract map or subsequent future development of the property. \\TEa'vlEC_FS201\DATA\DEFFS\PLANNING\STAFFRPI'\397&,398PCCR¢cvd)..doc 23 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, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Planning Application No. PA98-0397 (Zoning Amendment), to change the zoning on a 7.31 acre parcel from High Density Residential to a PDO (Planned Development Oveday) zoning classification on property located on the south side of Margarita ROad approximately 1,400 feet east of Moraga Road and known as Assessors Parcel No. 921-370-004, and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, in incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk. Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of ,1998. ATTEST: Ron Roberrs, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certi~ that the foregoing Ordinance No. __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of ,1998, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the __ day of ,1998 by the following roll call vote: R:\staffz~t\397&.398PC(Recvd)..doc 24 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Cle~ R:\staffq~t~397&398PC(Recvd)..doc 25 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\staffrpt\397&398PC(R¢cvd)..doc 26 Project Title Lead Agency Name and Address Contact Person and Phone Number Project Location Project Sponsor's Name and Address General Plan Designation Zoning Description of Project Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Other public agencies whose approval is required City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Environmental Checklist Planning Application No. PAg8-0397 (Change of Zone) and PA98- 0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810) City of Temecula P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Patty Anders, Assistant Planner (909) 694-6400 The south side of Margarita Road approximately 1,400 feet east of Moraga Road. Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Rd., Ste. N, Temecula, CA 92590 High Density (H) High Density (H) The subdivision of 7.31 acres into 78 single family Jots (including product review) and two open space/park lots within a planned development overlay district. To the north is an existing, detached, single family residential development, to the east is an approved condominium development and further east is an existing single family residential development. To the west is an apartment complex currently under construction, and to the south is an approved apartment complex also under construction. Fire Department, Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Riverside County Flood Control, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, General Telephone, U.S Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game. R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia..doc 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 Planning Population and Housing X X Geologic Problems X Water Air Quality X Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources X Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance None Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Date Printed Name Date R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia..doc 2 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: 1.8. 1.c. 1.d. 1.e. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)? POtentially Significant Impact POtentia41y Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated No impact X X X X X Comments: la,b The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and has a Land Use Designation of H (High Density 13-20 dwelling units per acre). The site is being developed at a density of approximately 11 units per acre which is well below the maximum density range of 20 units per acre. The proposed change of zone is to allow development of 11 units per acre which is below the minimum density requirements of 13 units per acre in the High Density classification. The General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzed the maximum density allowance for each zoning classification; therefore, the requested reduction in density is determined to be compatible with, and not be in conflict with the General Plan or zoning classification. The subject site is an in-fill lot that is proposing development that will serve as a"good transitional development to the condominium project to the east and the apartments to the south and west. The overall impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further. all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.C The proposed tentative tract map and change of zone will not be incompatible with existing land use, and will not to be considered incompatible or impact the existing residential tracts and multi-family housing developments in the vicinity. The project has been proposed at approximately 11 units per acre which is below the maximum density allowance of 20 units per acre. Although the tentative tract map is for detached, single family lots, it is very similar to the adjacent condominium project to the east in terms of lot size, site design, circulation and amenities. Both developments are detached "patio home" products, and thus, very compatible. The subject project will also serve as a good transitional development between the existing residential tract developments to the north and further east, and the high density apartment complexes under construction to the west and south. The project complies with the City-Wide Design Guidelines, the Development Code and General Plan. The project was designed to be compatible with the surrounding area in terms of architecture, site design, ingress/egress, density and landscaping. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. R:%PLANNING\397pa98eia. ,doc 3 1 .d,e The project will not affect agricultural resources or disrupt or divide the physicel arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minodty community). There is evidence that a single family residence was built at this site years ago, but the site is now vacant. Therefore, no established residential communities (including low-income or minority communities) are at this site. The trends in the vicinity have depleted the agricultural significance of the site. No significant effects are not anticipated as a result of this project. R:%PLANNING\397pa98eia.,doc 4 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: 2.a. 2.c. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projects? (Source 1, Page 2-23) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) Less Than X X Comments: 2.a The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project will result in the construction of 78 detached single family residential lots which is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation of H (High Density Residential). The proposed density is approximately 11 units per acre which is below the permitted maximum density of 20 units per acre. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does not exceed the maximum density, the project will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation of H (High Density Residential) and will primarily serve the housing needs for people in the immediate and surrounding areas. The project may cause som~ people to relocate to or within Temecula; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.c The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing as the site is a vacant lot that will be providing moderate priced housing. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia..doc 5 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? issues and Supporting Information Sources 3.a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6) 3.b. Seismic ground shaking? X 3.c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (Source 1, X Figure 7-2, Page 7-8) 3.d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X 3.e. Landslides or mudflows? X 3.f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X conditions form excavation, grading or fill? 3.g. Subsidence of the land? (Source 2, Figure 7, Page 68) X 3.h. Expansive soils? X 3.i. Unique geologic or physical features? Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless MiTigation Significant No X X Corllments; 3.a. The project will not 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. c,g,h The project may have a potentially significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking as the project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. There may also be a potentially signirLcant impact from seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further. preliminary soil reports shall be submitted which will determine the condition of the soil on the subject site. The soil reports will be reviewed prior to the issuance of a grading permit to mitigate the project to a level of insignificance. The soil reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence or expansive soils if applicable as a result of the soil reports. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.d. The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 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 within close proximity 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. Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of the project and the project may result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. However, 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 fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping, mitigation measures R:\PLANNING~397pa98eia,.doC 3.i. contained in the soil reports, and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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. R:%PLANNrNG\397pa98eia..dOC 7 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 4.a. 4.c. 4.d. 4.e. 4.f. 4.g. 4.h. 4.i. Issues and Supporting Information Sources Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source 2, Figure 13, Page 95 and Source 2, Figure 30, Page 190; Source 1, Figure 7-4) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water Movements? Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?. Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater. Otherwise available for public water supplies? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated X X X X Impact X X X X Comments: 4.a The project will have a less than signi~can impact to the change in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runoff. The project site is primarily in its natural state but has been disturbed by regularly dicing of the site for weed control purposes. There is an existing drainage channel on site that primarily handles urban run off from the development to the east. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle the existing and future drainage flows. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.b. The project will not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or water related hazards because the project is not located within a dam inundation area or the 100 year Flood Boundary as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report and pursuant to FEMA maps. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.c The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project. the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\PLANNING%397pa98eia..doc 8 4.d 4.e. 4.f-h. 4.i The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody or impact currents. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage will not considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project may have a potentially significant impact in the course or direction of wa~er movements. The site is primarily in its natural state although there is evidence on site that indicates a single family residence was developed some time ago. The site currently has a drainage channel that traverses the northern portion of the site. The channel accommodates the drainage (storm water runoff) from the subdivision to the east. The natural water movement of the drainage channel will be modified as the channel will be conveyed underground to handle the existing and future drainage flows. The project will be conditioned to obtain all necessary permits and or clearances from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game. Therefore with the conditions of approval, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not 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. The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:%PLANNING\397pa98eia..doc 9 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 5.a. 5.b. 5.c. 5.d. Issues and Supporting Infornlatton SOurces Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? Create objectionable odors? Potentially Significa~qt impact Potentially Sjg~cant Unless Mitigatio~ Incorporated X X X No Impact Comments: 5.a. The project will not violate any air quality standard or contdbute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project (78 residential units with product review) which is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact (166 units) 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 objectionable odors dudng the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia..doc 10 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: 6.a. 6.b. 6.c. 6.d. 6.e. 6.f. 6.g. Increase vehicle tdps or traffic congestion? Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses)? Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? Potentially SignifYant Impact No X X X X X X Comments: 6.a. While the project may result in an incremental increase in traffic congestion, it will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips. It is anticipated that this project will result in a less than significant increase to the existing traffic volumes dudng the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames at the intersections of Margarita Road and Moraga Road, and the intersection of La Serena Way and Margarita 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 and development impact fees paid, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.c. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is a single family residential tract with product review in an area with existing and similar planned uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not provide direct access to nearby uses; therafore, 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 barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f. The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The project was transmitted to the Riveraide 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. R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia..dOC 11 6.g. The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia..doc 12 7, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the proposal result in impacts to: 7.8. 7.b. 7.c. 7.d. 7.e. Issues and Supporting Information Sourcea Endangered, threatened or reare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat. etc.)? Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Significant Impact X No Impact X X X Comments: 7.a,d The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The site is primarily in its natural state although there is evidence on site that indicates that a single family residence was developed some time ago. The site also has a drainage channel that traverses the northern podion of the site. The channel primarily accommodates the drainage (storm water runoff) from the subdivision to the east. A Biological Assessment was prepared in September of 1998 which states that the site does not possess wetland characteristics; does not have significant biological resources; and none of the wildlife species observed at the site are listed as Special-Status and Sensitive Animal Species. Therefore, the Biological Assessment concluded that the project will not result in a direct adverse impact on significant biological resoumes (vegetation, habitat, wildlife and/or wetlands). However, the sarhe drainage channel traverses the two parcels to the east and west of the subject site. The parcels to the east and west were required to obtain all applicable permits pursuant Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Army Corps of Engineers) and or Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, staff will be conditioning this project to obtain all necessary permits and or clearances from California Depadment of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. With the conditions of approval, the required state and federal permitting and/or clearances, and mitigation measures, the project impacts are anticipated to be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 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.e. The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve as pad of a migration corridor due to its close proximity to extensive urban levels of development (nodh, east and west), the regular dicing of the site and the dominance of the site by non- native species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia..dOC 13 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 8.a. 8.c. Issues 8rid Suppofiing InfonmBtton SOurces Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Potentially Potentially Significant Less Then Significant Unless Mitigation Significant X Impact X X Comments; 8.3. The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage, No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws, No significant impacts am anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. 8.c. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the regioh and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia. ,doc 14 HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 9.a. A dsk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation)? g.b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 9.c. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? 9.d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? g.e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: 9.a. 9.b. g.c. No X X X X 9.d. g,e. 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 this request. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area that could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws 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. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with ~ammable 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. R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia.,doC 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Issues and SuDpoeting Information Source8 lO.a. Increase in existin9 noise levels? 10.b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? No Impact Comments: 10,a. The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run, Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term. 10.b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the developmentJconstruction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise, No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia,.doc 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: Potentially Potentildiy Significant Less Than Significant Unless Mitigation Significant 11 .a. Fire protection? X 11 .b. Police protection? X 11 .c. Schools? X 11 .d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X 11 .e. Other governmental services? X No C o mrrle i~ts; 11 .a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities. No 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. However, the applicant will be required to pay all applicable school fees as a result of this development. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.d. The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads, Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax that is distributed to the City of Temecula from'the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 11 .e. The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia..doc 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS: Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Issues and Supportjllg Information Sources 12.a. Power or natural gas? 12. b. Communications systems? 12.c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? 12.d. Sewer or septic tanks? 12.e. Storm water drainage? 12.f. Solid waste disposal? 12.g. Local or regional water supplies? X No impact X X X X X X Comments: 12.a. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.b. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.c. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.d. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental irapad upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is requirad 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 Ran, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.e. The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.f. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems, Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.g. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\PLANNING\397pa98ela..doc 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 13.a. 13,b. 13,c. Affect a scenic v sta or scenic highway? Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic affect? Create light or glare? Significant Potentially Sigraficant Unless Mitigation Incorporated X !mpact X X No Impact Comments: 13.a. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located ~n 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 designs are consistent with other designs in the area. The enhanced landscaping and additional architectural treatments will provide additional aesthetic enhancement that will result in quality designed homes. Therefore, no adverse visual impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in a minimum amount of light or glare censidedng the scope of the project. However, all light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory; therefore the project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). With the conditions of approval, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\PLANNING\3971)a98eia..doc 19 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 14.a. Disturb paleontological resources? 14.b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 1, Figure 5-6) 14.c. Affect historicel resources? 14.d. Have the potential to cause a physicel change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 14.e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Significant Impact Potentially Significant Less Than Unless Mitigation Significant X X X X No Impact X Comments: 14.a,c. The project may have a potentially significant impact on paleontological resources as the project is located in an area of high sensitive paleontological resources (Figure 5-7 of the City's General Plan). The project was reviewed by EEastem Information Center at University of California, Riverside (UCR), and the project will be conditioned to submit a cultural resource management report following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation. With the mitigation measures, 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. A portion of the site was previously developed with a single family residence, but there was no evidence of unique ethnic cultural values on site. The parcel is located in an area of high sensitive paleontological resources (Figure 5-7 of the City's General Plan) Therefore, 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. R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia..doc 20 15. RECREATION, Would the proposal: 15.a. 15.b. Issues and Supporting Inforn~atio~l Sources Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Affect existing recreational opportunities? Potentially Potentildly Significant Less Than Significa~t Unless Mitigation Significant No X X Comments: 15.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. The project is providing two small park sites (including a swimming pool) on site to accommodate the immediate needs of the residents. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia..doc 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 16.a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 16.b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? 16.c. Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). 16.d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: Potentially Potentiidly Significant Less Than Significant Unless Mitigation Significant X X X R:%PLANNING\397pa98eia..doc 22 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Eadier analyses may be used Eadier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier analysis. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. SOURCES 1. City of Temecula General Plan. 2. City of Ternecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 4. City of Temecula Development Code R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia, .doc 23 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R: ~staffq~t\397&.398 PC(Recvd)..doe 27 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA 98-0397 (Change of Zone) and PA No, 98-0398 (Tentative Tract Map 28810) Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose I~eople 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: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457. Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works. R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia..doc 25 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code. Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning 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. The applicant shall submit a 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 Pady: Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). R:\PLANNING~397pa98eia..doc 26 Transportation/Circulation General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Part,J: 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 and conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts. Pay the appropriate fee in the amount in effect at the time of submittal. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Department of Public Works. Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion and conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Condition the project to install bicycle lanes adjacent to Margarita Road as part of the read improvements. Submit road improvement plans that include the installation of the bicycle lanes as approved by the Planning Commission, Submit read improvement plans with grading plans. Department of Public Works. Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Condition the project to widen Margarita Road, adjacent to their project, to the ultimate General Plan build-out. Submit road improvement plans that comply with the approved site plan and the General Plan Circulation Element. Submit road improvement plans with grading plans. Department of Public Works. R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia..doc 27 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Biolooical Resources 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 tdps or traffic congestion. Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee. Pay pro-rata share for traffic impacts (to be determined by the Director of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works. 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 Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool). The project will be conditioned to obtain project clearance and/or permits from the Army Corps of Engineer and the State Department of Fish and Game prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Submit proof of clearance and/or permits, and any mitigation measures from the Army Corps of Engineer and the State Department of Fish and Game. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and Planning Department R:~PLANNING\397pa98eia..doc 28 EnerOy and Mineral Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party Affect upon energy conservation plans. Compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation. Submit energy calculations and pertinent data for review. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department Noise General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Affect upon the future residents of the proposed units. Implementation of the specific measures identified in the acoustical study to comply with the General Plan noise level standards for residential units. Submit an acoustical study illustrating the interior noise levels of the residential units affected by future build-out traffic conditions, and implement recommended noise reduction measures. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department Public Services General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire and police protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection; however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision. Payment of Fire Mitigation Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Riverside County Fire Department. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Department R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia..dec 29 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant impacts are anticipated. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School District. A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public facilities. Pay the appropriate fee in the amount in effect at the time of submittal. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Department of Public Works. Aesthetics General Impact: Mitigation Measure: ._ Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will be compatible with the existing area and not have a negative aesthetic effect. Compliance with the approved elevations, colors and materials. Submit construction plans that are consistent with the approved elevations, colors and materials. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, review plans for compliance with Planning Commission approval. Planning Department. R:\PLANNING\397pa98eia..doc 30 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 EXHIBITS R:\staffq~tL397&398PC(R¢cvd)..doe 28 CITY OF TEMECULA Morac SITE Rood Vicinity Map n.t.s. · PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0397 and PA98-0398 EXHIBIT- A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- December 2, 1998 VICINITY MAP \\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\397&398PC..doc CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - H (High Density Residential) EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION o H (High Density Residential) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0397 AND PA98-0398 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -December 2, 1998 R:\STAFFRPT\397&398PC..doc J = o~o~ ~ b '1 ,h,li.I lll hilt Jttll.~j~ i! l- ILl × LLI =r X Z il _ZZzZZZ__ X 13:1 X tU Z ~v X DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Dove Homes-Tentative Tract No. 28810 Residential Planned Development Overlay LOT DIMENSIONS Minimum Lot Frontage at Front Property Line Minimum Lot Frontage for a Flag Lot at Front Property Line Minimum Width at Required Front Setback Area Minimum Average Width Minimum Lot Depth Minimum Net Lot Area 30 feet 12 feet 40 feet 40 feet 55 feet 2,700 sq. ~. SETBACKS Minimum Front Yard Minimum Comer Side Yard Minimum Interior Side Yard Minimum Rear Yard Minimum Distance Between Structures 8 feet 0 feet 0 feet 5 feet 3 feet MISCELLANEOUS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Maximum Height Maximum % of Lot Coverage Minimum Open Space per Unit 35 feet 50% 120 sq.~. Notes: Vadable Side Yard Setbacks: Variable side yard setbacks may be permitted provided in a zero lot line arrangement with a zero setback on one side and a minimum of 3 feet on the opposite side yard. No encroachments shall be permitted within the 3-foot side yard setback area. Accessory Structures: The location of accessory structures shall be located in allowable buildable area as shown on the Exhibit entitled Planned Development Overlay. Accessory structures shall maintain a minimum separation of three feet from all other structures unless attached. EXHIBIT G DRIVE ROLLED CURB //-4' SIDEWALK (AS SHOWN ~' RIGHT) / I.J'""'} mln. I~ I i .11 m~n. / lmi'n - / 29.5 PE ~ ~ 30.0 PE . PE f _- J: 'L__ 1 --CURB CORE DRAJN Cr'YP) UNIT, 30.5 PE 8U~L~BU~ ] ~ E~PE L___Z__J ' TYPICAL LOT N.T.S. ITEM #7 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Planning Commission Patty Anders. Assistant Planner November 24, 1998 Planning Application No. PA98-0323 (Tentative Tract Map 28510) This application will be continued off calendar to allow time to process a Specific Plan Amendment to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan due to the school site doubling in size. The increase to the school site resulted in numerous changes to the vadous Planning Areas in terms of total acreage, proposed densities, a reduction to the size of the park site and an increase in the amount of CommerciaJ area. The map and the Specific Plan amendment will be re-noticed and brought before you once the amendment is completed. R:\MEMOSB23PA98raem. PC 11/25/~8 pa