HomeMy WebLinkAbout081899 PC AgendaMc~mp~iance~dth~heAmedca~eithDisab~NesAd~y~uneedspedd~i~anc~par6dpate~n~b~ng~nMh
elgce ofde C4mreudty Devebpeent Deparbeentat(O0O)S94-64~. NoU~cation48hows prlorte ameedng wlu enable ffie C~Yt~nake
feasonabie anangeme~ts to ensure -,~'--dbiltty to that ~ r29 CFR H,l o2.3sJ o4 ADA TIde Iq
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
August 18, f999, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Perk Ddve
Council Chambers
Temecule, CA 92590
Resoludon Next In Order #99-028
CALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALUTE:
ROLL CALL:
PUBUC COMMENTS
Chairperson Guerriero
Fahey, Guerriem, Mathewson, Naggar, and Webster
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of tie public can address tie commissioners on items tiat are not listed on
tie Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to tie Commissioners about an item
not listed on tie Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary,
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all otier agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be tled witi tie Ranning Secretary before Commission gets
to tiat item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2.
3.
4.
Approval of Agenda
Minutes from July 21, 1999
Dimctor's Heedng Update
Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for High Society Billlard and Dart Club
PUBUC HEARING ITEMS
5. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner,
Recommendation:
Planning ApplicaUon No. PA99-030t (Revisions to previously approved PA98-
0386 Development Plan)
John Firestone
On the southeast comer of Ranoho Ca[ifomia Road and Ridge Pad< Ddve.
The design, construction and operation of a 50,100 square foot speoulative office
building witi associated parking and landscaping located on a parcel conta!ning 4.01
gross acres,
Determination of consistency with previously certified Mitigated
Negative Declaration
Patty Andere, Assistant Planner
Approval
6. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner.
Case Engineer.
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA98-0516 (Tentative Parcel Map No.
29132)
Raymond Schooley
Soutiwest comer of State Highway 79 and Avenida De Missions
To subdivide 6.68 acres of lend into five (5) lots zoned Office Professional.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Patty Andere, Assistant Planner
Annie Bostre-Le
Approval
7, Case No:
Location:
Proposal:
Envimnrnental Action:
Planner.
Recommendation:
8. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposals:
Environmental Action:
Planner:.
Recemmendation:
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeUng:
Amendments to the Development Code (Plenning Application PA97-0197)
City of Temecula
Citywide
To amend the Development Code to do the following:
1. Establish standards for Large Family Day Cam Home Fadlities;
2. Establish permiffing requirements for the approval of Large Family Day Cam
Home Facilities;
3, Re-categodzing temporary uses;
4. Amend __nc~e__ssor/structure setback requirements;
5. Modify the senior housing. cengregate cam, and affordable housing
provisions;
6. Clarify paris of the floor area Patio incentive bonus; and,
7. Make numerous other minor changes to the Development Code.
Recommend Adoption of a Negative DedaPation
Dave Hogan
Approve a Resolution Recommending Adoption of an Ordinance
City-initiated General Ran Amendments and Zone Changes (Ranning
Application PA97-0291)
City of Temec, ula
Site I - South side of Via La Veda between Calle Palmas and Via Sevilla.
Site 2 - South of the Embassy Suites Hotel between Interstate 15
and Randno Highlands Ddve.
Site 3 - West side of Avenida de Missiones nodh of Temecula Creek.
Site1- Amend tbe C-eneral Plan Land Use and the Zoning Maps for
the City of Temecula for an site identFred as Assessors Parcel
Numbers 921-660.026, -027, -041, -042 and located South of Via La
Veda between Calls Palmas and Via Seville from Medium Density
Residential to Low Medium Density Residential.
Site 2 -To amend the General Plan Land Use Map for the City of
Temecula for a site identified as Assessors Parcel Number 944-330-
019 and located between Rancho Highlands Drive and Interstate 15
from Open Space to Highway Tourist Commemial.
Site 3 -To amend the General Plan Land Use and the Zoning Maps
for the City of Temecula for the southerly pertion of a site identified as
Assessors Parcel Number 950-120-004 and located west of Avenida
de Missiones from Open Space-Consewation to Professional Offioe.
Recommend Adoption of a Negative Declaration
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
Approve a Resolution Recommending Adoption of an Ordinance
September 1, 1999, 6:00 PM, City Council ChamboPa, 43200 Business Park Ddve,
Temecula, Catifomie, 92590
R:\W~IBERVG~PLANCOMM~AGENDAS\I999\8-18-99.doc
2
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 21, 1999
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:02 P.M.,
on Wednesday July 21, 1999, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Webster.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Commissioners Fahey *, Mathewson, Naggar, Webster,
and Chairman Guerriero.
Absent: None.
Also Present:
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Attorney Curley,
Senior Planner Fagan,
Associate Planner Donahoe,
Assistant Planner Anders,
Project Planner Thornsley, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
*(Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:08 P.M.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. ADDroyal of Auenda
It was the consensus of the Commission to hear Agenda Item No. 8 prior to hearing
Agenda Item No. 7.
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the agenda, as amended. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent.
PlanCommlminutes1072199
2. Approval of Minutes-June 16, 1999
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to approve the minutes, as written. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Webster and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent and Commissioner Mathewson who
abstained.
3, Director's Hearing UDdate
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that she was available for questions regarding the
Director's Hearing report.
For Commissioner Naggar, Assistant Planner Anders relayed that the number of units
proposed in the Woodside Homes of California development would be approximately
184.
Flow Charts for Gradincl Permit, Buildinq Permit and Final Inspection
Process
Querying the Commission for input, Senior Planner Fagan presented the staff report,
highlighting the process for projects after Commission approval with respect to the
grading and building permits, and the final inspection process.
Chairman Guerriero and Commissioner Naggar commended staff for their fine work with
respect to the informational data provided.
5. Dekkon PA98-0353-Proposed Development Plan Chan~les
It was noted that at 6:08 P.M. Commissioner Fahey arrived at the meeting.
Due to the proposed significant changes to the previously approved project, by way of
color renderings, Assistant Planner Anders presented the staff report; noted the design
change form an L-shaped building to a rectangular-shaped building; relayed that at a
future point in time this particular project would be presented to the Commission due to
the lack of a finding of substantial conformance.
For informational purposes, Commissioner Webster expressed his preference for the
original color scheme of the building due to its location,
Mr. David Whiffield, representing the applicant, provided clarification regarding the
inclusion of the corporate office for Huntco Development in the project, as well; and
provided additional information regarding the proposed modifications.
6. On The Border PA99-0079-Proposed Mural
Reviewing the City's regulatory guidelines which would relate to the proposed project,
Project Planner Thornstey presented the staff report; and specified the following: 1) that
the General Plan is silent with respect to murals, 2) that the City's Sign Ordinance is
PlanCommlminutes1072199
broad and contains no specific language addressing this particular project, and 3) that
the Sign Ordinance addresses works of art and the associated approval by staff.
Commissioner Naggar relayed that while he was not opposed to this particular mural,
that his previously expressed concerns had not been addressed, specifically indicated,
as follows: 1) whether or not the project constitutes signage or art, 2) the development
for a criteria of approval to ensure consistency, and 3) the precedence that approval of
this particular project would set for future similar proposals.
After staffs review, providing clarification that the Commission would not be limited by
the Sign Ordinance, Commissioner Fahey advised that since the project would be
approved based on the particular design of this proposed project, and whether it would
be appropriate for this location in the mall, she could support the project.
Relaying his opinion that this particular project falls into the category of art due to the
lack of a restaurant or business denotation, Commissioner Webster relayed his
concurrence with staffs recommendation, advising that this particular project would
enhance the mall site.
While concurring that this particular mural does constitute art, Commission Mathewson
expressed concern regarding setting a precedence with the approval of this project due
to the lack of defined guidelines in the General Plan, Sign Ordinance, and Design
Guidelines; and relayed concern with respect to the impact of approving future projects.
Concurring with Commissioner Mathewson's comments, Chairman Guerriero expressed
concern due to the lack of a developed criteria for making a determination of
categorizing art or murals; and recommended that a regulatory governing policy be set
prior to the approval of this particular project.
Commissioner Webster provided the following recommendation for provision of a
guideline criteria for similar projects, as follows: 1 ) a mural with provision of historical
content relating to the valley, or 2) a mural with provision of representation of current
valley activities (i.e., wine, balloons), relaying that this particular project is representative
of historical valley events.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve staffs recommendation.
Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion. (This motion was ultimately amended.)
Commissioner Naggar recommended that staff develop standards with respect to murals
that would serve to regulate size, location, and restrictions regarding the total number of
permitted uses, prior to approval of this project; and relayed what without such
guidelines, he could not support the project.
In concurrence, Chairman Guerriero recommended having staff develop a criterion for
approval and then at that point in time bringing this particular project back before the
Commission.
In response to Planning Manager Ubnoske's querying the Commission for clarification
as to whether the request encompassed amending the Specific Plan, the Design
PlanComm/minutes1072199
Guidelines, or the Sign Ordinance, Chairman Guerriero relayed that if the Sign
Ordinance was modified to include language addressing murals or works of art that this
would most likely serve as an appropriate guideline.
Due to the time constraints associated with amending the aforementioned regulatory
documents, Commissioner Fahey recommended approving this particular project and
then, subsequently, begin the process to amend the City's documents for the purpose of
approving future projects.
In response to Commission comments, Attorney Cudey advised that with respect to
setting a precedence of approval for future projects, that if this project would be
approved with no regulatory basis it would be difficult to distinguish future similar
projects; clarified that if in the interim pedod between approving this particular proposal
and a subsequent similar project being brought before the Commission that a regulatory
base for approval could be developed, and therefore mitigate the concern regarding
setting a precedence, noting that this project would then have no affect on future
projects; and queried the Commission as to what specific impact was desired to be
addressed (i.e., proliferation, size, uniform design.)
While acknowledging the benefit of expediting the matter, Commissioner Mathewson
relayed a reluctance to approve this project due to the precedence being set;
recommended that murals be regulated City-wide; and queried staff which act would be
more expeditious, amending the Specific Plan, or amending the other aforementioned
documents.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to amend his original motion to maintain
accepting staffs recommendation to approve this project while requesting that staff
develop the appropriate document to address murals at a later date. (This motion
ultimately died for lack of a second.)
In response to the Commission, Attorney Curley advised that the amendment of any of
the various regulatory legislative documents would take a minimum of approximately 90
days; suggested that the Commission approve and adopt a regulating policy during the
interim period between approval of this project and the subsequent weeks, pending the
ultimate legislative response, thereby addressing provision of guidelines for future
murals.
Providing clarification, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that she would not
recommend amending the Specific Plan; suggested that this project move forward on
the building portion of the project while staff investigates amending the Design
Guidelines or the Sign Ordinance; and that staff bdng back the amendment to the
Planning Commission for approval; and advised that the Commission would then have
provision of parameters addressing their concerns; and relayed that the applicant could
at that time present the mural to staff or the Commission for approval within the scope of
the newly developed parameters.
PlanComm/minutes1072199
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve staffs recommendation to approve
the project, as is; and request staff to add additional language to address future murals
in order to address the Commissioners' concern with respect to setting a precedence.
Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioners Mathewson and Naggar who voted n_go.
(The previous discussed Agenda Item No. 6 was reopened and voice vote was
taken again. See page 6.)
7. Home Depot Workshop
This Agenda Item was heard after Agenda Item No. 8. (See page 7.)
PUBLIC HEARING
Plannina Application No. PA99-0236 (Site Plan Revision) and PA99-0012
(Conditional Use Permit}.
Request to change the site plan configuration of the shopping center to
include the abandon well site and enlarge tow lots for future development.
The application is a proposal to build and operate 5,310 square foot tier
sales and installation, automotive service and repair facility.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Planning
Commission approve the request.
By way of overheads, Project Planner Thornsley presented a detailed overview of the
staff report (of record); highlighted site design, noting that a landscape berm would be
installed for provision of screening the service bays; presented the line-of-sight diagram
for provision of the view from Winchester Road (denoted on Exhibit G per agenda
material); noted that the 37% landscape plan far exceeds the 20% requirement;
confirmed that this site is zoned Community Commercial (CC); and for Commissioner
Mathewson, clarified the rationale for bringing this matter before the Commission,
specifying the proposed uses on this particular site.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Planning Manager Ubnoske advised that staff typically
does not take into account the number of existing similar uses in the area.
The applicant's representative relayed that he was available for Commission questions
and comments.
Chairman Guerriero closed the public hearing at this time.
Regarding the Conditional Use Permit, Commissioner Webster cited Finding No. 2
(denoted on page 5 of the staff report) regarding compatibility; and relayed that it was his
5
PlanCommlminutes/072199
opinion that this particular use would not be compatible at this site in this Community
Commercial zoning area; and expressed his preference for maintaining this type of use
in Service Commercial areas, or with a conditional approval within Highway Tourist
Commercial areas, or within the Light industrial areas.
Concurring with Commissioner Webster's comments, Commissioner Fahey relayed that
it was her opinion that due to the need to screen the service bay areas of this particular
project on this predominant corner intersection that this contdbuted to a determination
that this project would be an inappropriate use for this particular site.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Senior Planner Fagan reiterated staff's finding of
consistency, referencing the agenda material.
Commissioner Mathewson and Chairman Guerdero relayed concurrence with the
previous Commission comments.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to deny the proposed project; and for the
record clarified that the denial is based upon the incompatibility of the described use on
the site and with the adjacent uses, and that the project does not comply with the goals
of the General Plan, specifically, the community design element; and that the denial is
not based upon the number of other similar uses in that area. Commissioner Fahey
seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. (Denied: 5/0)
At 6:57 P.M. a shod recess was taken, and the meeting reconvened at 7:06 P.M.
Regarding Agenda Item No. 6, Chairman Guerriero relayed that due to the additional
discussion surrounding the motion, he misunderstood the final amended motion
presented for Agenda Item No. 6.
MOTION: Chairman Guerriero moved to reopen Agenda Item No. 6. Commissioner
Naggar seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of
Commissioner Fahey who voted n__o.
At this time the meeting continued back to Agenda Item No. 6o
6. On The Border PA99-0079-ProDosed Mural
Attorney Cudey provided additional information regarding reopening this matter and the
privilege granted to correct the affirmative vote; provided clarification regarding the final
motion made by Commissioner Webster; and voice vote was taken again, as follows:
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve staffs recommendation to approve
the project, as is; and request staff to add additional language to address future murals
in order to address the Commissioners' concern with respect to setting a precedence.
Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected denial due to
Commissioners Guerriero's, Mathewson's, and Naggar's votes of n__o. (Denied: 3~2)
PlanCommlminutes1072199
MOTION: Commissioner Naggar moved to direct staff to further investigate the
aforementioned matter in order to formulate a policy and an Ordinance that would
provide regulations regarding murals. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion
and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Webster and
Fahey who voted n__o.
At this time the meeting continued to Agenda Item No. 7.
7. Home Depot Workshop
For the record, the Commissioners relayed that they had had previous correspondence
with the applicant's representatives to discuss associated issues regarding the Home
Depot project.
Providing a brief overview, Associate Planner Donahoe presented the staff report (via
agenda material); specified the four ultimate requests for approval, as follows: 1) a
Parcel Map, 2) a Development Plan for the 23-acre parcel, 3) the Specific Plan
Amendment, and 4) the Development Agreement; relayed the areas of concern that staff
would desire the Planning Commission to provide further input, as follows: 1) the Village
Center Concept with respect to this proposed project, 2) the design elements proposed,
3) the elevations, in terms of scale and mass, 4) the specific location of the uses, and 5)
the outdoor display area encompassing 2500 square feet.
Mr. Allan Davis, representing the applicant, introduced the consultant team; presented
the current design for the retail Village Plan; relayed the applicant's intent to meet the
goal of incorporation of the Village Center Concept; specified the location of the
specified Centers; provided additional information regarding the Home Center, the
Sports Center, the Plaza, inclusive of the food uses for the enhancement of the
corridors, and the alternate casual eating areas; and reiterated in further detail the
associated approval processes for this particular project.
Mr. Kareem All, representing the applicant, presented the elevations and site plan for
this particular project; specified the enhanced building articulation; and provided
specification as to the landscape plan, and the location of the Home Depot use.
Mr. Allan Davis further clarified the approval process, and the desire to receive input
from the Planning Commission; and specified the street configuration proposals,
inclusive of the cul-de-sac, and the through-street options.
Mr. Brett Kratzer, representing the applicant, further specified the site plan, noting the
plan to unify the entire property; highlighted the location of the plazas, parking area, and
the village design aspects of the site; relayed the goal to avoid maintaining long facades
of blank walls, and the plan to incorporate pedestrian pockets, varying roof sizes, varying
storefronts, and varying utilization of building materials; noted the additional amenities
the project encompassed; and provided additional information regarding future signage
and lighting.
7
PlanCommlminutes1072199
Mr. Allan Davis presented an overview of the proposed operational plan, inclusive of the
associated multi-functional space within the parking lot; highlighted the site plan,
inclusive of the sub-areas within the retail Village portion of the project, and the
conditional use permit; and in conclusion invited the Commission to provide input and
direction.
Commissioner Naggar relayed his comments and concerns, as follows:
Queried the location of the Daycare Center with respect to the close proximity
to the Home Depot use, and the impacts associated with the two points of
access
Recommended provision of information regarding the traffic impacts
associated with the creation of the cul-de-sacs and the proposed access
points
Requested clarification with respect to the pedestrian links
With regard to safety, requested data regarding the access points to the
Center
Relayed a desire for additional information regarding the parking plan, and
the potential impact to the residential areas
Requested provision of a comparative summary of the difference between
this particular Home Depot use and the Home Depot use located in the City
of Murrieta
Suggested incorporating specialty fountains into the Children's Center (i.e.,
simulated wave fountain, pop-up fountain)
Recommended further articulation on the Home Depot building design
Relayed his preliminary preference to not cul-de-sac the area
In response to Commissioner Naggar's comments, Mr. Allan Davis provided clarification
regarding the pedestrian links; relayed the current Development Agreement with respect
to the Master Plan, and the proposed Development Agreement; concurred with
Commissioner Naggar's recommendation to incorporate interactive water uses in the
Center for the enjoyment of the children.
Commissioner Fahey relayed her comments and concerns, as follows:
Noted that she strongly supported the cul-de-sac concept
Relayed that she was pleased with the modified layout at the Village Center
Recommended further enhancement of the building architecture at the Home
Depot site
8
PlanCommlminutes1072199
Commended the applicant on their diligent preliminary efforts to implement the
Village Center concept at this difficult site
Commissioner Webster expressed his comments and concerns, as follows:
Queried the various alternate street configurations
Relayed that in light of the site constraints, the applicant has done well to
incorporate the Village Center theme
Advised that the street configuration with the through street would be more
conducive to a Village Center theme verses the cul-de-sac option
Recommended that Campanula Way be maintained as a through street
Relayed that a center median would provide various benefits, including
improved circulation
Advised that he would not support the cul-de-sac option with respect to street
configuration options (relayed his strong opinion regarding this issue)
With respect to the outdoor seasonal area, recommended locating that podion
of the project on the side of the building between the Lucky's and Home Depot
uses
Regarding the Village Buildings, recommended there be frontage provided
along Campanula Way, as well as, along the parking area
Recommended recon~guring the building location at the east end of the
project along Meadows Parkway to reflect two buildings at the east end with a
Plaza area in the center (Relayed his strong opinion regarding this issue)
In response to Commissioner Webster, Mr. Allan Davis presented the preliminary street
configuration options, and the associated access points.
For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Bob Davis, representing the applicant, provided
additional information regarding the original intent of the Specific Plan and the current
generation of low volumes of traffic in the area; provided additional information regarding
the street configuration options, and the associated impacts; relayed that if the cul-de-
sac option would be adopted there would be existing provision to adequately
accommodate the additional traffic; for Commissioner Naggar, further clarified the
impacts with respect to the cul-de-sac option and the associated parking; and
recommended that the project incorporate angled street parking verses parallel parking.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the Public Works Department would
most likely not support on-street angled parking; for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified
the additional potential for liability issues associated with angled parking; noted that staff
had requested that the applicant provide provision of traffic studies with regard to the
impact associated to the street configurations, specifically with respect to the cul-de-sac
9
PlanCommlminutes/072199
or thoroughfare options in order for staff to evaluate the impact with respect to the
general circulation; clarified that the Public Works Department has not made a
determination of support or lack of support for the cul-de-sac concept; and noted the
advisement relayed to the applicant regarding consideration of rotating or reversing the
building configuration.
Mr. Barry Burnell, representing the applicant on the adjacent property, provided
additional information regarding the adjacent property's potential proposed plan and the
associated pedestrian access; and relayed that he was of the opinion that this particular
proposed project blends the uses in a cohesive manner.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed his comments and concerns, as follows:
Queried the impact of the location of the Home Depot use with respect to the
pedestrian link
Relayed that he was in favor of the development of the Village Center
Concept
Requested that staff further review the cul-de-sac street configuration option
and the associated angled parking issue
Queried the compatibility of the Daycare Center use located adjacent to the
Home Depot loading area, specifically regarding the air quality impact
generated from the trucks
Recommended provision of a line-of-sight diagram for the view from the
residential areas to the site, specifically with respect to the loading dock area
Regarding the permitted uses, recommended that the proposed uses are
reviewed by staff to ensure consistency to the Village Center Concept
With respect to the multi-functional area in the parking lot, recommended that
additional treatments be added to facilitate a cohesive pedestrian area
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Allan Davis provided additional information regarding
the rationale for the location of the Daycare Center.
Chairman Guerriero's comments and concerns were relayed, as follows:
Relayed that he was in favor of the cul-de-sac design, with the provision of the
appropriate controls
Noted that he was opposed to angled street parking
Recommended that the Home Depot building be further enhanced, specifically
addressing the rear of the building
10
PlanCommlminutes1072199
Relayed that he was in favor of the Village Concept and was pleased with the
represented color renderings
Recommended that the Fire Department evaluate provision of adequate
emergency access with respect to the cul-de-sac street configuration option
For Chairman Guerriero, Mr. Allan Davis provided additional information regarding the
proposal to reverse the Home Depot building site; and relayed the applicanrs desire to
further work with the Public Works Department to develop an appropriate site plan.
Mr. Frank Coda, representing the applicant, relayed that the Temecula Home Depot site
would have additional parking and additional square footage in comparison to the
Murrieta Home Depot; relayed the basis for the impact associated with the access points
at the Murrieta site; noted that the proposed design would basically be the final design
presented, relaying the warehouse concept that would be incorporated into the design;
provided additional information regarding modifying the rear of the building, and the
potential to add additional articulation to that elevation; noted that a 12-foot wall would
most likely screen the loading area; for Commissioner Mathewson, clarified the use of
the seasonal outdoor area; for Commissioner Naggar, relayed the limitations regarding
adding additional articulation on the building; and for informational purposes relayed the
applicant's intent to further work with staff regarding the building design.
In response to Mr. Coda's comments, for the record Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed
that there is no current agreement with the City of Temecula to approve or accept the
current Home Depot Design, as proposed.
Mr. Allan Davis clarified the proposed Home Depot design, noting the plan to further
enhance the adjacent uses within the Center; relayed the process of working with the
City of Temecula; and thanked the Commission for their consideration and input
regarding the Home Depot Project.
Plannin~l Al~l~lication No. PA99-0236 (Site Plan Revision) and PA99-0012
(Conditional Use Permit).
This Agenda Item was heard out of order, see page 5.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that if it was the desire of the
Commissioners to take a tour of the mall site that they correspond with Val in the
Planning Department.
Regarding the upcoming Design Workshop, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed
the potential of the Workshop being cancelled due to the lack of available
speakers.
PlanComm/minutes/072199
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
Commissioner Naggar noted that with respect to the lettier received from the
Temecula Valley Citizens for Responsible Growth, regarding the Roripaugh
Ranch Project, that after numerous attempts he was unable to contact any
person from the organization.
For the record, Commissioner Naggar relayed that he had corresponded with
representatives from the Roripaugh Ranch project.
With respect to Commissioner Mathewson's comments regarding vehicles being
parked at Meadows Parkway and Rancho California Road, Chairman Guerriero
relayed the appropriate phone correspondence in order to contact the governing
agency.
In response to Commissioner Webster's querying regarding the grading project
along Winchester Road, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided
additional clarification, specifying the associated soil conditions.
For Commissioner Webster, Planning Manager Ubnoske provided additional
information regarding the Meadowview Golf Course submittals to the City, noting
the recent receipt of the formal application.
Regarding the Porto~no Project on Rancho California Road, Chairman Guerriero
recommended that the level of the screening on the tennis court be raised for the
purpose of ensuring safety.
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:06 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday,
Au~!ust 4. 1999 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula.
Ron Guerriere, Chain'nan
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
12
ITEM #3
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
August 18, 1999
Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for July 1999:
Date Case No.
July 29, 1999 PA99-0031
Proposal
The design and
construction of a 6,867
square foot
commercial building on
a 30,056 square foot
lot for a veterinarian
clinic and additional
retail/office
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 3
Applicant
Clayton Hill, DVM
Action
Approved
\XTEMEC_FS101\VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\MEMO\1999Uuly 1999,memo.doc
1
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
\\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\DIP, HEAR\MEMO\1999XJuly 1999.memo.doc
2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 29, 1999 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CALL TO ORDER: Matthew Fagan, Senior Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Plarmer.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA99-0031 (De,~elopment Plan
Clayton Hill, DVM
East side of Winchester Road south of Nicolas Road
The design and construction of a 6,867 square foot commemial
building on a 30,056 square foot lot for a veterinarian clinic
and additional retail/office space.
This project is exempt from further evaluation under CEQA
Section 15332 (In-fill Development Projects).
Thomas Thomsley
Approval
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
P:\PLANNING\DIRHEAR\I999\7-29-99.AGENDA.doc
ITEM #4
CITY OF TEMCULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
August 18, 1999
Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for the High Society Billiard and Dad
Club located at 27496 Commerce Center Drive.
Prepared by:
Camle Donahoe, AICP. Associate Planner and
Paul Swancott Planning Intem
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
GENERAL PLAN: Subject:
North:
South:
East:
West:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Service Commercial
Service Commercial
Service Commercial
Service Commercial
Service Commercial
Service Commercial
Service Commercial
Service Commercial
(SC)
(SC)
(sc)
(SO) and Light Industrial (LI)
(SC) and Community Commercial (CC)
(SO) and Open Space (OS)
(SC)
(SC)
BACKGROUND
The applicant is requesting the Temecula City Planning Commission make a finding of public
convenience or necessity in order to sell beer at their proposed new billlard hall located at the
northeast comer of Commerce Center Ddve and Ovedand Ddve. The billlard hall has been in
existence since 1993 at 27309 Jefferson Avenue, and currently possesses a Type 40 (on sale beer
only) permit from the Califomia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). The applicant is
re-locating to a larger location. According to the owner, Michael Dean McMillen, he will immediately
surrender the current permit upon issuance of the new permit. State law requires a local finding of
public convenience or necessity before a beverage sales license will be transferred/issued by the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board.
R:~TAFFRPTX113PA99 PC.doe
Plannine Aoplication No. PA99-0113 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
On August 12, 1999 a Directors Hearing was held to consider the conditional use permit required
for a billlard pador in the Service Commemial zone. The Headng Director approved the permit, after
headng testimony both in favor and in opposition. The pdmary concern of those in opposition was
the consumption of alcohol across Commerce Center Ddve from their own facilities. A copy of the
staff report, which includes the letters in opposition, are attached to this report. Additional
information provided by the applicant regarding the management and operations of the Club are also
included for your review.
ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission has developed several cdteda to determine whether or not a finding of
public convenience or necessity can be made. The cdteda and the responses are as follows:
Criteria to Justify Making a Findim3 of Public Convenience or Necessity
Q. Does the proposed establishment have any unique features, which are not found in other similar
uses in the community (i.e. types of games, types of food, and other special services)?
A, Yes. High Society Billlard and Darts Club is unique because it is one of a few Billlard and Dart
Clubs represented in the Temecula Valley. The Club also offers retail sales and service of
dartboard accessories to other locations throughout the area. The Club offers Billlard and Dart
league representation at the national level.
Q. Does the proposed establishment cater to an under-served population (i.e., Patrons of a different
socio-economic class)?
A. Yes. Males generally dominate the billlard and dart industry. However, the Club offers free
lessons and play for women everyday from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
Q. Does the proposed establishment provide entertainment that would fill a niche in the community
(i.e. comedy club, jazz club, etc)?
A. Yes. The High Society Billlard and Dart Club focuses on providing a clean and wholesome
atmosphere and seeks to attract families and their children. The establishment fills a niche in
the community by offedng a family orientated entertainment facility.
Q. Are there any geographicel boundaries (i.e. dvers, hillsides) or traffic barTiers (i.e. freeways,
major roads, major intersections) separating the proposed establishment from other
establishments?
Yes. The High Society Billlard and Dart Club will be located on the west side of the Interstate
15 freeway, within one mile of the new Ovedand Bddge. The majority of entertainment centers,
such as movie theaters, regional mall, skate park. community recreation center and duck pond,
are all located on the east side of the freeway.
Q. Is the proposed establishment located in an area where there is a significant influx of population
dudng certain seasonal pedods?
No. The proposed establishment is itself a semi seasonal operation, according to its owner. The
seasonal periods that will result in increased patronage of the establishment are the fall and
winter months. As a result of colder temperatures combined with shorter days a greater need
for inside entertainment is created. However, its location is an area of relatively stable
population.
R:~STAFFRPTx113PA99 PC.doe
2
Criteria to Not Justify Makin~l a Findin¢l of Pubic Convenience or Necessity
Q. Is there a proliferation of licensed establishments within a quarter mile of the proposed
establishment?
A. No. Currently there are fifteen (15) licensed establishments within a quarter mile of the proposed
business. All ten are located to the west of 1-15. However, none of the ten is a billiards, pool
hall or dart facility.
Q. Are there any sensitive uses (i.e. schools. parks, hospitals, churches) in close proximity (600
feet) to the proposed establishment?
Yes. The Calvary Chapel Christian Academy has a Youth Center and Children's Ministry located
across the street at 27475 Commerce Center Ddve. At 27485 Commerce Center Ddve, the
Royale College of Beauty operates classes in cosmetology for students 16 years and older.
Within one block the following schools are located: the Temecula Valley Stars Cheedeading
School and the Southem California Elite Gymnastics Academy. Also within one block is the
Brentwood Montessori School. Except for the Montessori School, these other uses have
evening and daytime activities.
Q. Would the proposed establishment interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their property by the
residents of the area?
A. No. There are no residences in the area.
Q. Will the proposed establishment add to law enforcement problems in the area?
A. No. According to the Police Department, the High Society Billlard and Dart Club is not expected
to create or exacerbate law enforcement problems in the area.
Number of Similar uses within the City
One (1) other establishment, the "Q" Club, located at 27911 Front Street offers billiards and darts
in a similar environment in the City of Temecula.
Number of other licensed establishments within I Mile and 3 miles
There are thirty-two (32) licensed establishments within a one (1) mile radius of the subject
establishment. These licensed establishments include restaurants, bars, mini-marts and grocery
stores. The three mile (3) radius encompasses the remainder of the licensed establishments within
the City of Temecula.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the Planning commission review the information included in this report and make
the appropriate finding.
Attachments:
1. A. Vicin~ Map with % Mile Radius - Blue Page 4
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan
2. Correspondence: Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) Application & instructions - Blue Page 5
3. Director's Headng Staff Report dated August 12, 1999 - Blue Page 6
4. Applicant's Informational Handout (under separate cover) - Blue Page 7
R:~STAFFRP'~II3PA~9 PC,doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
VICINITY MAP
ZONING MAP
GENERAL PLAN
R:~STAFFRF~113PA99 PC.doc
4
CITY OF TEMECULA
High Society Billlard and Dart Club
Public Convenience and Necessity
Cities.shp
I~ MURRIETA
0 300 600 90012001500 Feet F'ITEMECULA
r ~ ~ Parcels
Street Centerlines
N
CASE NO. - High Society Billiards and Dart Club
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 12, 1999
VICINITY MAP
SC
CiTY OF TEMECULA
"Project Site
EXHIBIT B o ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - Service Commercial (SC)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - Service Commercial (SC)
CASE NO. - High Society Billiards and Dart Club
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 12, 1999
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CORRESPONDENCEFROM
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD
R:~TAFFRPTXII3PA~9 PC.doc
RECEIVED JU.N 2
CAL~FOINIA
1999
DROPPING PARTNER
YES NO
APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE(S)
TO:
Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control
3737 Main St., Suite 900
Riverside, CA 92501
· (909) 782-4400
File Number ..............355030
Receipt Number .........1239338
Geographical Code ........3322
Copies Mailed Date 6/21/99
Issued Date
DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION:
Name of Business:
Location of Business:
Number and Street
City, State Zip Code
CounW
Is premise inside city limits?
RIVERSIDE
HIGH SOCIETY BILLlARD & DART CLUB
27496 COMMERCE CENTER DR
TEMECULA CA 92590
RIVERSIDE
YES
Mailing Address:
(If different from
premise address)
If premise licensed:
Type of license
Transferors namesfiicense:
29860 CAMINO CRISTAL
MENIFEE CA 92584
Licen~ TYpe Transaction Type l*ee TYPe Ma~ter DUm Date
1. 40 ~-S~ 9g~ ORIG~ ~ ~ 0 21-~-1999 $200.00 :
2. 40 ON-S~E BE~ ~ FME ~ ~S 0 21-~-1999 S205.00:
TOTAL $405.00
Have you ever been Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control
convicted of a felony? NO Act, or regulations of the Department pertaining to the Act? N O
Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in on-saJe licensed premise will have all the qualifications of a licensee, and (To) that he
will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic 8everege Control Act.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of RIVERSIDE Dam JUN 21,1999
Applicant Name(s) Applicant Signature(s)
,/'
/
/
ABC 211 (4/98)
APPLICANT(S)NAME
In~rmafion & Instructions
23958.4
M C MILLEN, Michael Dean
PREMISES ADDRESS:
Type of License
Census Tract: 0432.04
Number of Licenses Allowed:
Crime Reporting District:
Crimes in Reporting District
27496 Commerce Center Dr. Temecula, Ca. 92.590
(for Types 20,21. 6~. 42 & 48)
28
Number of Existing Licenses: 82
Number Pending Licenses:
Reporting District Average
The above premises is located in an area which has an overconcentration or
higher than average crime rate as defined in Section 23958.4 of the Business &
Professions Code.
The Department is required to deny your application unless it can be shown that
public convenience and necessity will be served by issuance of another license in this
area.
Section 23958.4 requires you to obtain a letter from the local jurisdiction whereto
your premises will be located reflecting that they agree that issuance of the applied for
license will meet the public convenience and necessity standards for their commun!~.
It is very important that you obtain this letter immediately after filing your
application. If the local jurisdiction does not approve there is the likely hood your
application will be denied.
Please discuss any questions you may have with your interviewer or your Investigator.
Your application cannot be submitted for approval without this information.
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
DIRECTOR'S HEARING STAFF REPORT
DATED AUGUST 12, 1999
R:~TAFFR~T~113PA~9 PC.doc
6
Planning Application No. PA99-0113 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
For High Society Billiards and Dart Club
August 12, 1999
Director's Hearing
Planning Application No. PA99-0113 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) is a request to operate a
billlard and dart club at 27496 Commerce Center Drive, Unit "C", which is located at the
northeast corner of Commerce Center Drive and Overland Drive. The High Society Club
currently operates a facility at 27309 Jefferson Avenue and wishes to relocate in order to
expand retail sales of related supplies and equipment. The Club seeks to provide clean and
wholesome entertainment for families and their children. The applicant also desires to transfer
his existing license to dispense alcoholic beverages at the proposed facility and is concurrently
requesting that the City Planning Commission make a Finding of Public Convenience and
Necessity in order that he may obtain a new license for the proposed location. The Planning
Commission shall consider the request at their August 18, 1999 hearing.
The proposal, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code.
The site is designated by the General Plan and zoned SC Service Commercial. Billlard parlors
are permitted in this zone upon approval of a conditional use permit. City Departments have
reviewed the site plan and floor plan and have provided conditions of approval for the project.
The Police Department indicates that there have been no calls to the existing facility, A Notice of
Public Hearing was published and mailed to adjacent property owners. Staff has received a
written response to the Notice from the Assistant Pastor Nick LaBruno and Youth Minister Keith
Maxcy of the Calvary Chapel which is located across the street from the project site. Their
letters in opposition are attached to this staff report.
The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with Section
15301 Class 1, because the project is proposed to be housed in an existing commercial building
with no exterior alterations or additions. The proposed use does not involve an expansion of
uses beyond those previously approved for the site.
Staff recommends that the Planning Director approve Planning Application No. PA99-0113
(Minor Conditional Us Permit) based upon the findings and attached conditions of approval.
This concludes staffs presentation. Staff is available to answer any questions.
R:\STAFFRPT~113pa99.STAFFRPT.E)H.doc
Planning Application No. PA99-0113 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
FINDINGS:
The proposed conditional use permit is consistent with the General Plan and the
Development Code. The site is designated by the General Plan and zoned SC Service
Commercial. Billlard parlors are permitted in this zone upon approval of a conditional use
permit. City Departments have reviewed the site plan and floor plan and have provided
conditions of approval for the project.
The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition and development
of adjacent uses, buildings and structures and the proposed conditional use will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings or structures. The uses in the vicinity are a
mixture of furniture showrooms, restaurants, small retail shops, offaces, auto and
motorcycle repair, schools, a daycare center and a church, all within the SC Service
Commercial zone. Several of these uses, such as religious institutions and daycare
facilities, themselves require a conditional use permit. Other uses, such as the retail
shops, offices and auto repair would generally be closed during the peak business hours
of the project.
The site for a proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and
other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the
Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood. The proposed use will be housed in an existing structure which already
provides the required features prescribed by Code.
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the community. The project has been conditioned to comply with
measures that ensure the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The
project proposes to offer family entertainment. Police records indicate no calls have
been made to the existing facility.
That the decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application for a
conditional use permit be based on substantial evidence in view of the record as a
whole.
R:\STAFFRpT~I 13pa99 .STAFFRPT.DH .doc
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT~I 13pa99.STAFFRPT.DH.dOC
3
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA99-0113 (Minor Conditional Use Permit)
The use hereby permitted is for the operation of a billlard and dart club with retail
sales and service of supplies and equipment, in a 6,048 square foot suite within a
commercial building at 27496 Commerce Center Drive
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-480-055
Approval Date: August 12, 1999
Expiration Date: August 12, 2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protect, hotd harmless, and defend with Legat Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions,
awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul,
seek monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of
and the approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency,
appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City,
concerning the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant
and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable
and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right
to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its
citizens in regards to such defense.
The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval for Planning Application No.
PA99-0113, unless superseded by these conditions of approval. All these conditions
shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by this conditional use
permit.
This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the City's
Development Code.
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the
approval of this Conditional Use Permit.
5. Hours of operation shall be between 11 a.m. and 2 a.m., seven days a week.
R:\STAFFRpT'~113pa99.STAFFRPT,DH,dOC
4
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1998 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 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.
9. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work.
10. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be A-3.
11.
Provide Occupancy approvals for all existing buildings (i.e. finale building permits or
Certificate of Occupancy)
12.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April
1, 1998)
13. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
14. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
15.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1996
edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
16.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
17.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review.
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 if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
R:\STAFFRPT'~113pa99.STAFFRPT,DH.dOC
5
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - None.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions
regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
20.
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
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which
are in force at the time of building plan submittal.
21.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC 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 400 GPM
for a total fire flow of 1900 GPM with a 2 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. (CFC 903.2,
Appendix Ill-A)
22.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
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 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and
adjacent public streets, Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located
no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s)
frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC
903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
23.
As required by the California 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. (CFC 903.2)
24.
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 80,000 Ibs. GV~N with a minimum AC thickness of
.25 feet. ( CFC sec 902)
25.
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. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
26.
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. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
27. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective
Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
R:\STAFFRP"~I 13pa99.STAFFRPT.DH.dOc
6
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
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). (CFC 901.4.4)
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, (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
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.
(CFC Article 10)
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" shall
be provided. The Knox-Box shall be installed a minimum of six (6) feet in height and be
located to the right side of the main entrance door. The Knox-Box shall be supervised
by the alarm system. (CFC 902.4)
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid
entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
OTHER AGENCIES
33.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated April 9, 1999, a copy
of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, I understand and I accept all the
above mentioned Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be
maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish
to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Name
R:\STAFFRpT~113pa99.STAFFRPT.DH.dOC
7
TO:
FROM:
RE:
' COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: April 9, 1999
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA99-0113
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA99-0113
and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL for health clearance, the following items are
required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies.
b) Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture
schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the
California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact FOod
Facility Plan examiners at (909) 694-5022.
CH:dr
(909) 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.
cc: Doug Thompson
stand3b.cloc
{Tuesday August 10, 1~ 3:~,Tpe -- Page 2{
0,S/11/99 06:31 P/tJ: [~lO2
lUly2, 1999
Investigator
Riverside District Office
3737 Main Stre~ Suitc 900
Rivehide, CA 92501
TIffs leller is in response to a proposed business named, High Socie4:y BilU~cl & Dart Club at
27496 Commerce Center Drive. Tcmccula. We do not feel that such a business is appropriate at
thLs location_ There vnli be alcohol consumption, opponunily for gambling at Ihe pool tables, as
well as video games that will a~aet the youth in our community.
Our youth center 27457 Commerce Center Dr. is directly across from the prolmsed
establishment. Our concern is obvious. We would like to continue to have a safe environm~t
to teach our kids. H;gh Society Billiaxd &Dm Club will be serving alcoholic beverages of aJl
types which wall create a dangerous environment for our kids. Of particular concern to us is
drivers leavln~ tha club after consuming alcoholic beverages. I would ~ to protest the issuance
of a license to operate this kind ofb-fin~.ss near ou~ churek
P~or Nick LaBrune
Assistant P~or
Chapel Tem~l~
IT~scby Aq.~ust_lO, lc~9 3:&7;m -- Page )l
08/].1/99 08:31 FAZ Z~O3e
Ta mt ,
August 10, 1999
Dear Carol Donahoe,
My name is Kdth Maxcy and I am the Youth lVfinixter for Calvary Chapd of Temeo,h We have
over 200 Jr. & St. Itgh kids in our youth group. Many of them are strong Christians who love
th~ Lord and are devoted to sharing that love with others. However, some of our kids struggle
with the temptations of drags & alcohol. To put a pool hall that serves beer less than 100 feet
fi-om our youth rxnt~r would i~ a detriment to what we are trying to aczomplish in the lives of
these kids. Not to mention the potemial for disaster. Dnmk men laving the establishment would
see on a regular basis vulnerable, young women directly a~ross the street. I am sure this pool hall
would be vea3t surxtssful, but for all rig wrong reasons.
Thank you vepj much for your time and attention. Please feel free to call me for a more
tonnation.
Sincerely,
KeithMax
Youth l~l;ni~ter
Calvar,/Chapel of Temeoala
27462 Enterprise Circle West · Temecula, California 92590
(909) 699-0553 · Fax (909) 694-9533 · calvrytm@iinekcom · www. calvarychapd.com/temeculavalley
IWed,,esday August 41, !c~9 1:45~a~ -- Page
~,~,
EOYAI F COLLEGE OF BEAUTY
274g5 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE
TE~IECULA, CALIFORNIA 92590
Re.' Proposed Pool H,~ B~ ~ bc locaV, d
i- In considcrin~ mc propeal to opcn a pool/HlSard parlor busincss a~,s Ihc sU~ct
from our school me following vcry serious i~mes ar~ of concern to ~ Wc court,
among our Uud=nt body lhirt3r-fivc to forty young !adics who axz sl!~in kigh school,
and rang: in age flora six:h~n and up. Our school schedule coin~.wid~ the hours
fig busine~ would bc open urving alcohol and aUr~,g pcoplc of-ill ages who arc
,- dS~m'hlc tO comumC alcohol Wc do not bdicvc a *faney' center ickycs alcohol,
~ ,
=** W'd~n a one-block rad/m m*c serial locatiom whcrc minors are ~ and/or
:' carol for, such as Rcryak Co!Icg~, Calvary Chal~ Youth Center an~ **~y,
;* Mont:sorri School and Day C_,m~ a Dance Academy and Chccd~ School,
: for Community ColL-ge mulems, numy of whom arc undragc for ~ cotuumption,
~ I ha~ spoken with the Rivcnidc Comity of]~,~ of the California R~ Occupa~iotuI
!- Program which adminisUn m~ hi~h school Sh,a,~t progra~ Wc i~c.a dr, cp
: con= for mc welfare of ~ hc~ and take ~ seriouS/err ~mp0em~,~xy t~ thc
~ parents of tbcse sXudents ~ tnahr~n a safe a~d cduca~o ' ' school
!' schools and acadcn~cs ~ ~is atu of Tcmec~d~
~Wcccrt/hdyrgxpcc[gtcfi~c~thi'dlcb~u~nessowncr~scx3g~.wt;r. ce:b~aE, v~x~for
'~Jdmsclfand h~s fan~y, b~ fool fhax a d~:~cx~nf locale would be ~n h~l*.bcsa;/ox~-xcfrn
~-~cst and ~ax of us and our nc~ghbor~ hcrc.
iiWe plan m atL-'nd the hearing on August 12 x~'gardlng ehis issue, andjlnmt that it
~wi~ bc resolved by tl~ Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
APPLICANT'SINFORMATIONALHANDOUT
(UNDERSEPARATE COVER)
R:~TAFFRl~l13PA99
7
ITEM #5
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske,"~lan~ng Manager
August 18, 1999
Proposed Changes for Planning Application PA 99-0301 (previously approved as
PA98~0386 Development Plan), for the property located on the southeast corner
of Rancho California and Ridge Park Drive
Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
The Planning Commission approved PA 99-0386 (Development Plan) on November 18, 1998 for
the design, construction and operation of a 51,298 square foot office building. Subsequent to that
approval, the developer decided to improve the overall design, further enhancing its appearance
as a high-end office building.
The building is now being proposed at approximately 50,100 square feet. The predominant
changes are to the exterior elevations, which did result in some minor changes to the overall site
design. The exterior changes are: extensive use of green colored glass, the main entry was
modified from a curved to a square amhitectural element, slightly different color scheme (from white
to light gray), the loss of the subterranean garage and roof deck, slightly more 'landscaping and
eighteen (18) additional parking spaces. The main components of the design are comparable to
what was originally approved; however, staff felt the changes were significant enough to warrant
bringing the project back to the approving body.
Attached are copies of the proposed structure, as well as a colored copy of what was originally
approved.
All previous conditions of approval are in effect and made a part hereof.
Attachments:
1. Previously Approved Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 2
2. Resolution No. 98-043 approving PA98-0386 - Blue Page 3
3. Revised Exhibits: (available on request)
Site Plan
Elevations
Floor Plans
Landscape Plans
Colored Rendering
Previously Approved Colored Rendering
\\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLI\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX301PA99PC-MEM.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL
\\TEMEC FSI01\VOLI\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\301PA99PC-MEM.doc
2
EXHIBIT A
CiTY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA98-0386 (Development Plan)
Project Description: The design and construction of a two-story, 51,289 square foot
speculative office building with associated parking and landscaping on a 3.05 acre
site.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 940-310-029
Approval Date: November 18, 1998
Expiration Date: November 18, 2000
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicantJdeveloper shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers 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 DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and
Califomia Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour pedod the
applicantJdeveloper has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required
above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition,
Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any
agency or instrumentality thereof. and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any
and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality
thereof, or any of its offcars, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek
monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality
thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the
voters of the City, concerning the Specific Plan Amendment which action is brought within the
appropriate statute of limitations pedod and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4
(Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21:167).
City shall promptly notify the developedapplicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought
within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should
the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not,
thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
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
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
~\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~386pa98pc. ,doc 9
4. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, or as amended
by these conditions.
a. Two (2) Class I lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
b, A minimum of one hundred sixty seven (167) parking spaces shall be provided.
c. A minimum of six (6) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
Landscaping shall be provided in substantial conformance with Exhibit "E" (Landscape
Plan), or as amended by these conditions, Landscaping installed for the project shall be
continuously maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. If it is determined that
the landscaping is not being maintained, the Planning Manager shall have the authority to
require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved
landscape plan.
The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the
developer.
The landscaping on the east slope shall be improved to the originally approved
condition.
Building elevations shall conform substantially to 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
Extedor Wall Finish (Stucco)
Exterior Wall Finish (Stucco)
Exterior Wall Entry (Ceramic Tile)
Exterior Wall Entry Accent Strips (Ceramic Tile)
Base-Entry Course Accent (Black Granite Tile)
Glass (Solarcool)
Colors
La Habra-X50-Crystal White
La Habr-X56 French Grey
White
Grey
Zimbabwe
Grey Reflective
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).
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
10, A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
11. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
',,,TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING',STAFFRPT~386~a98pc..doc 10
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "E", or as amended by these conditions.
The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water
Efficient Ordinance).
Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
12.
An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required if signage is
proposed, An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Manager.
13, Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
14.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape and irrigation
plans.
15.
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 prope~y constructed and in good working
order.
16.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed refiectofized 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 60 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the
off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously
stating the following:
"Unauthodzed vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces
not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for
persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense,
Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-
3000".
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT\386pa98pC..doc
I!
17. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approved construction
landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department
- Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that year, if the
landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the
Planning Manager, the bond shall be released.
18. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with pdor to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
23. The Occupancy classification of the proposed buildings shall be B/S-3.
24. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
25. All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998).
26. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
27. Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry.
28. Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
29. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
30. Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1994
edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
31. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
32. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
\,,TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS',pLANNING~STAFFRiY~386pa98pc..doc 12
submitted for plan review.
33.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
34.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
35. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
36.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
37.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls require separate
approvals and permits.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan all
existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and
drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review
and revision.
General Requirements
38.
A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site flat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
39.
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.
40.
All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
41.
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.
42.
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.
43. 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
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~386pagSpC, .doc 13
shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and
upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and
identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect
the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream
facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make
required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
45.
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.
46.
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
47.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any undedying maps related to the
subject property.
48.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
49.
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.
50.
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
51.
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 cdteda 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.
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFFS\PLANNING',STAFFRFf~386Ra98pc..doc
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with Ordinance 461.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
e. All street and ddveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
52.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the Director of the Department of Public Works:
Improve Rancho California Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R/W)
to include installation/reconstruction of existing drainage facility
ba
Improve Ridge Park Drive (Pdncipal Collector Highway Standards - 78' PJVV) to
include installation of sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, and utilities
(including but not limited to water and sewer).
Install an ADA access ramp per City of Temecula Standard No. 402 at the
northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Ridge Park Drive.
53.
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.
54.
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.
55.
The Developer shall record a wdtten 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
56.
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 Distdct
Department of Public Works
57.
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.
56. 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.
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEpTS\pLANNINGXSTAFFRPT~386pa98F. .doc
FIRE DEPARTMENT
59.
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 fome at the
time of building plan submittal.
60.
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 spdnkler demand of 400 GPM for a
total fire flow of 1900 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)
61.
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 380 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
upgrede of existing fire hydrants may be required. (UFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-
B)
62.
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)
63.
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access reads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
70,000 Ibs GV~N. (UFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
64.
65.
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, GV~N 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)
66.
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)
67. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to installation. Plans shall be:
',',TEMEC_FS201',DATA\DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRF~386[~ggpc..dc~
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 )
68.
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)
69.
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)
70.
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)
71.
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)
72.
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 dght side of the main entrance door, The Knox-Box shall be supervised by
the alarm system. (UFC 902.4)
73.
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)
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
74.
Pdor to installation of the artedal street lighting, the developer shall file an application
with the TCSD and pay the appropriate energy charges related to the transfer of said
lights to the City.
OTHER AGENCIES
75.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water Districrs trensmittal dated September 28, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
76.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control District transmittal dated October 6, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEFFS\PLANNING~STAFFRYrX386pa98pc..doc
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
\\TEMEC_FS201\DATA\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRpT~86pa98pc..doc
DAVID P. ZAPPE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/'788-9965 FAX
51180.1
City of Temecula
Plannin De artment
Post 9033 OCT S
Temecula. Califomia 92589-9033
A. en.on: /2r Try
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: P/DI q ~ ' D 3 ~) (~
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The Dis~ict also does not an check ~ land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reports for st~.~lcases, Disffict comments/recommendations for such cases am normally limited
to items of specific ~nterest to the District includi District Master Draina · Plan radiities, other ional flood
control and draina · facilities which could be considered a logical componenPor extension of a masterr~p an s stem,
and District Area ~rainage Plan fees (development mitigstfol= fees). In addition, information of a general nsa~(usro is
pmvided.
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
health and safety or any other such issue:
V'/' This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor am other radiities of
regional ~nterest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan fadlities. The District will acce t ownership of such facilities on
written request of the City. Fadlities must be censtructed to District stancePe~rds and D strict p an check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
conmdefed regional in nature and/or a I hal extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District wo~l°~ consider accepting ownership of such tac4iffies On wntten request
of the City. Fadlies must be constructed to Dis~ct standards, and District pJ_an check and inspection will
be required for District acceptance. plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
permits whichever comes ~rst. 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 uira a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water
Resources Con~olr~oard. Clearance for grading, red)rdafion, or other final approva?should not be given until the
City has determined that the project has bien granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this pro'ect involves a Federal Emergen..cy Management Agency (FEMA mapp. ed flood plain. then the C' should
. uire app,ca.t to provide a, studies. ca =lati.,.. p ans and o or ,nfarmation required to
re~:luirements and should further require that the a plicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR)
pdor to grad ng, recordation or other final approva~PoPf the projed, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOM~I pdor to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a ticant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the Ca{}i~oroia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~ater Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or wdtten corTespondence from these a encies
indicating the project is exempt from these requ~rernents. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail Cert~cation
may be required from the local California Regional Water Qua ty Control Board pdor to ssuance of ~e Corps 404
permit.
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Oat.: Z 0 ' & ' qb
Water
John F. Hennigar
Phillip L. Forbes
Best Best & Krieger LLP
September 28, 1998
Patty Anders, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL I OF PARCEL MAP NO. 19626-1
APN 940-310-029
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-386
Dear Ms. Anders:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for
fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
981SB:mc2291FO12-T11FCF
c: Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-043
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\301PA99PC-MEM.doc
3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 98-043
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-
0386 TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A TWO-STORY, 51,289
SQUARE FOOT SPECULATIVE OFFICE BUILDING AND
ASSOCIATED PARKING, AND LANDSCAPING ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING A 3.05 (NET) ACRES LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RIDGE PARK DRIVE AND RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 940-
310-029.
WHEREAS, John F. Firestone filed Planning Application No. PA98-0386 in accordance with
the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0386 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0386 on
November 18, 1998, at a duly noticed public headng as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an opportunity to testif1/either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA98-0386;
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.
PA98-0386 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 ~s
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:\sumffrplL386ps98pc..doc
6
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a signfficant 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. PA98-0386 for the design and construction of a two-story, 51,289 square
foot speculative office building with associated parking and landscaping on a parcel containing 3.05
acres located on the southeast comer of Ridge Park Ddve and Rancho California Road, and known
as Assessor's Parcel No. 940-310-029 subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated
he~:ein by this reference and made a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 1998.
Mar~c'~Slaven, Cha~rl~erson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting there of, held on the 18th day of
November, 1998 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GUERRIERO,
WEBSTER
0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NONE
I PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: SOLTYSIAK
NAGGAR, SLAVEN,
De retary
R:\staffrpt~86pa98pc.,do~
7
ATTACHEMENT NO. 3
REVISED EXHIBITS
R:~TAFFRFI~01PA99PC-MF..M.doc
4
DN~O~Bg gg~BO .)l~/d ,~DCII~!
0
ill l{'{" {,
~ hd{{ {i,{i it ,
ol
i
! !
ii|| u I ,
iIl
DNKTII~g .:T'31.J:!O ,)l~ll/d 39Cl1~
.-,]
9NICTIID g ,T"JI.~O .)l~lVd
DNl~lll~g .:DI:I:IO ,)l~ll/rl :7"JCll8
dfiOYl) VtlBFIVH'IY
¢INIQ"Tlfi6 '2:)I:L:IO aDOIN qVJ. SAMO ,,~oaro~l
k
DNIOTIflE 331330 )l~lVd 3~01~
9NICTIII~g 3~1330 )l~lVd 3~Cl1~
I' \\\ ~
\ /
ITEM #6
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT-PLANNING
CITY OFTEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August18,1999
Planning Application No. PA98-0516 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29132)
Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA98-0171;
2. ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA98-0171; and
3. ADOPT Resolution No. 99- approving Planning
Application No. PA98-0516 based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report, and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval
APPLICATIONINFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
R:\STAFFRPT\516pa98.PC.doc
Ray Schooley
Engineering Ventures
To subdivide 6.68 acres of land into five (5) lots zoned Office
Professional.
Southwest corner of State Highway 79 and Avenida De
Missions
PO (Professional Of~ce)/OS (Open Space)
North: PO (Professional Office)
South: OS (Open Space)
East: LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
West: PO (Professional Office)lOS (Open Space)
Modify zoning map to be consistent with the General Plan
showing all of the subject property as PO (Professional
Office)
O (Professional Office)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Open Space Conservation Easement
Existing Single Family Residential Development
Vacant
BACKGROUND
Tentative Parcel Map No. 29132 was submitted on December 30, 1998 and a Development Review
Committee (DRC) meeting was held on January 26, 1999. Staff deemed the project complete on
July 20, 1999 after extensive research of the zoning of the subject property. This project was
originally scheduled for the August 5, 1999 Directotis Hearing, but due to increased public interest,
staff determined to have the Planning Commission review the application.
ANALYSIS
Access and Circulation
The subdivision has four points of access off of Avenida de Missions, all of which are joint use
easements for the project. No point of access shall be granted on State Highway 79.
There is a future road reservation along parcels 2 and 3 for a potential road. The current Circulation
Element of the General Plan shows the extension of Via Rio Temecula; however, this road
alignment would traverse through the Open Space Conservation Easement space west and south
of the subject site. As a result, the extension of Via Rio Temecula is not a logical or viable
connection; therefore, staff has required the applicant to reserve a 78' foot right-of-way within the
project boundary that is more environmentally sensitive and logical. The general location of Via
Rio Temecula is being as part of the City's update of the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Zoning Map Error
The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Office
Professional (O) and the zoning classification of Professional Office (PO). However, the zoning
map shows a portion (the southern end) of the subject property as zoned Open Space (OS).
The General Plan Land Use Map depicts the entire site as O (Professional Office). Staff
researched the situation by reviewing old Riverside County zoning maps, draft General Plan
maps, and the current General Plan Land Use Map. Upon review of all pertinent data, staff
determined the Land Use Map of the General Plan is correct, and the zoning m~p is incorrect.
Therefore, staff will be correcting the zoning map.
To ensure that the southern portion of the site did not have any environmentally significant habitat
or wildlife value, the applicant retained a biologist (Tom Dodson) and contacted the Army Corps
of Engineer to review the site for biological qualities. Both the biologist and the Army Corps
concluded that the property was legally isolated by an existing channel wall; would not be subject
to review or permits from the Corp; and that the subject parcel was not part of the existing
conservation easement south of the subject site. Their reports are included as attachments 3, 4
and 5. Therefore, the proposed subdivision map correction will not conflict with applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance).
R:\STAFFRPT\516pa98.PC.dOC
2
Development Standards
Pursuant to Chapter 17, Table 17.08.040B, the minimum lot size for Professional Office zoned
parcels is 40,000 square feet. The proposed parcels are in compliance with this minimum and are
consistent with the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
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 as
indicated in the biological review of the habitat on site, and given the fact that the site is not part
of the open space conservation easement. In addition, the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project which will ensure there will not be a
significant adverse impact on the environment as a result of this project. Therefore, a Negative
Declaration with a DeMinimus finding is hereby adopted.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed map provides adequate access, circulation and development opportunities. The
proposed parcels comply with the minimum lot size requirements of the Professional Office zoning
classification pursuant to Chapter 17, Table 17.08.040B of the Development Code. The parcels
are consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map and the zoning map upon correction of the
mapping error. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 29132 based
upon the following findings:
FINDINGS
The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is compatible with
the General Plan designation and zoning subject to the zoning map correction. The site is
physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land Use
designation for the site is O (Professional Office). Tentative Parcel Map No. 29132
proposes five (5) office professional lots which comply with the minimum lot size
requirement of 40,000.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the
City's General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision. 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.
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. The project will take direct access from Avenida de Missions
and will not obstruct any easements.
The map as proposed, conforms to the logical subdivision of the site, and is compatible with
the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subdivision is compatible with the
surrounding areas as the site is being developed pursuant to the General Plan and
Development Code which requires office professional parcels and development. Future
development of the site will be sensitive to the adjacent residential development to the east
and the open space conservation easement to the west and south by appropriate
R :\STAFFRPT\516pa98. PC. doc
interfacing of the future site designs. tn addition, the proposed subdivision provides
adequate access and circulation for emergency vehicles and will not impact existing
circulation or emergency vehicle access. The project as conditioned, will comply with the
City's Development Code, General Plan and subdivision requirements.
The design of the proposed land division is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are no
known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish,
wildlife or habitat off~site. The applicant retained a biologist (Tom Dodson) and contacted
the Army Corps of Engineer to review the site for biological qualities. Both the biologist and
the Army Corps reviewed the site and concluded that the proposed project does not
discharge dredged or fill material into a water of the United States or an adjacent wetland;
that the subject parcel was legally isolated by an existing channel wall; and the parcel was
not part of the existing conservation easement south of the subject site. The Corps also
stated that a project occurring on the subject parcel, as long as the project does not extend
southwest past the existing Presley Homes Levee into the Conservation Easement area,
is not subject to their jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a Section
404 permit is not required from the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore,
upon the review and confirmation of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Biologist, the
project is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project will not individually or
cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of
the Fish and Game Code.
Attachments:
4.
5.
6.
7.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Exhibits- Blue Page 19
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Tentative Parcel Map No. 29132
Letter from Tom Dodson & Associates dated March 31, 1999 - Blue Page 23
Letter from the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers April 7, 1999 - Blue Page 24
Letter from the Tom Dodson & Associates dated April 9, 1999 - Blue Page 25
Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 26
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 27
R:\STAFFRPT~516pa98.PC.dOC
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
R:\STAFFRPT\516pa98.PC.doc
5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA98-0516 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29132), LOCATED
ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 AND
AVENIDA DE MISSIONS, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 950-120-04
WHEREAS, Ray Schooley filed Planning Application No. PA98-0516 (Tentative Parcel Map
No. 29132) 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. PA98-0516 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29132) was
processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA98-0516
(Tentative Parcel Map No. 29132) on August 18, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and
did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA98-0516;
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 Ranning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PA98-0516 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29132), hereby makes the following findings
as required in Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460.
A. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is
compatible with the General Plan designation and zoning (with the zoning map correction). The site
is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land Use
designation for the site is O (Professional Office). Tentative Parcel Map No. 29132 proposes to
subdivide 6.68 acres of land into five (5) lots zoned Office Professional which a minimum lot size
of 40,000 square feet. The proposed subdivision is consistent with this requirement.
B. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely
to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the
City's General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision 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.
C. The design of the proposed ~and 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
R:\STAFFRPT\516pa98.PC.doc
6
proposed land division. The project will take direct access from Avenida de Missions and will not
obstruct any easements.
D. The map as proposed, conforms to the logical development of the site, and is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles.
E. The design of the proposed land division is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There
are no known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish,
wildlife or habitat off-site. The applicant retained a biologist (Tom Dodson) and contacted the Army
Corps of Engineer to review the site for biological qualities. Both the biologist and the Army Corps
reviewed the site and concluded that the proposed project does not discharge dredged or fill
material into a water of the United States or an adjacent wetland; that the subject parcel was legally
isolated by an existing channel wall; and the parcel was not part of the existing conservation
easement south of the subject site. The Corps also stated that a project occurring on the subject
parcel, as long as the project does not extend southwest past the existing Presley Homes Levee
into the Conservation Easement area, is not subject to their jurisdiction under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and a Section 404 permit is not required from the Department of the Army Corps
of Engineers. Therefore, upon the review and confirmation of the Army Corps of Engineers and the
Biologist, the project is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project will not individually or cumulatively
have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game
Code.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described.in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration with a DeMinimus Finding,
therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA98o0516 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29132) located on the southwest
corner of State Highway 79 and Avenida De Missions, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 950-
120-04, subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made
a part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this eighteenth day of August, 1999.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
R: \STAFFRPT\516pa98 PC. dec
?
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 eighteenth day of
August, 1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary.
R:\STAFFRPT\516pa98.PC.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT\516pa98.PC.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA98-0516 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29132)
Project Description:
The subdivision of 6.68 acres of land into five (5) lots
zoned Office Professional.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
950-120-004
August 18, 1999
August 18, 2001
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount
of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to
file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative
Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code
of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant/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 Subdivi.sion Map Act and
to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions,
awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek
monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the
approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal
board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning
the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner
of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all
action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such
defense.
R:\STAFFRPT\516pa98.PC.doC
4. tf subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved by
the Planning Director.
5. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation
measures.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
6. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Division.
7. 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 thit ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid,
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
8. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
1) This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palemar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, Palemar Observatory recommendations,
Ordinance No. 655.
2) This project is within a 100 year flood hazard zone.
3) This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone.
4) This project is within a Subsidence Zone.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project.
Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency.
General Requirements
9. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works prior te commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
10. 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.
11. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California bepartment.of Transportation
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of-
way.
12. All improvement plans and grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent
projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on
standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
R:\STAFFRPT\516pa98.PC.doc
Prior to Approval of the Parcel Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
13. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Rancho California Water District
c. Eastern Municipal Water District
d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
e. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
f. Planning Department
g. Riverside County Health Department
h. Cable TV Franchise
i. Caltrans
j. Community Services District
k. General Telephone
I. Southern California Edison Company
m. Southern California Gas Company
n. Fish & Game
o. Army Corps of Engineers
14. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Department of Public Works:
a. Improve Highway 79 South (Urban Arterial Highway Standards - 134' RAN) to
include installation of sidewalk and street lights, utilities (including but not limited to
water and sewer
b. Improve Avenida de Missions (Principal Collector Highway Standards - 78' R/W)
to include installation sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping,
utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer)
15. The Developer shall reserve a 78 foot easement for future road and public utility purposes
as delineated on the Tentative Parcel Map.
R:\STAFFRPT\516pa98. PC. doc
16. An easement for joint use driveways shall be provided prior to approval of the Parcel Map
or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
17.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design
of the street improvement plans:
a. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207A and/or 208.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400
and 401.
d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable 'IV shall
be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall
be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
18.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Highway 79 South on the Parcel Map as
delineated on the approved Tentative Parcel Map.
19.
Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian
facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County
Standard No. 805.
20.
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.
21.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an
existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to
City Council approval of the Parcel Map, the Developer shall make an application for
reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
22. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
23.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel
Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map.
A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval.
24.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the
Parcel Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements
pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement
R:\STAFFRPT\SI6pa98.PC.doc
13
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.
25.
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
26.
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.
27.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated
and noted on the final map.
28.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private property.
29.
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 submitte;:t 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 easements shaft be
kept free of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
30.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
e. Caltrans
31.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
32.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction
of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections.
R:XSTAFFRPT\516pa98.PC.dOc
33.
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 identify
storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of
the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private,
drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an
adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or
private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all
facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm
water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis
and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
34.
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.
35.
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.
36.
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.
37.
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.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
38. Parcel Map shall be approved and recorded.
39.
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.
40.
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 appreved rough grading plan.
41.
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
42. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
R: \STAFFRPT\5 t 6pa98. PC, doc
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
43.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
44.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
45.
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.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Prior to installation of street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the
applicant, or his assignee shall pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial street lights
into the TCSD maintenance program.
All perimeter slope and landscape areas shall be maintained by the property owner or a private
maintenance association.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
46.
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
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are
in force at the time of building plan submittal.
47.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land
division per CFC Appendix Ill.A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project,
a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure with
a four 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. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill.A)
48.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" 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. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
49. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.2.3)
R:\STAFFR.PT\516pa98.PC.doc
50.
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior
to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
51.
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
80,000 Ibs GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
52.
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall ha~ze 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 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902 and Ord 95-15)
53.
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. (CFC 902.2.2.1 and Ord 95-15)
54.
Prior to building construction, dead end roadways 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. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
55.
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. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire
Protection Association 24 1-4.1 )
56. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
57.
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. (CFC 902.4)
OTHER AGENCIES
58.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Rood Control
District's transmittal dated February 9, 1998, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made
payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or
money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by
the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee.
59.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information
Center, Department of Anthropology transmittal dated January 20, 1999, a copy of which
is attached.
R:XSTAFFRPT\516pa98.PC.doc
60.
61.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated January 18, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of
Transportation transmittal dated August 3, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shaft be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Signature
R:\STAFFRPT\516pa98.PC.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT\516pa98,PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
;. .
~! 30 ~\ \, /
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0516 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29132)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -August 18, 1999
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRPT\516pa98.PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
29152
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0516 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29132)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -August 18, 1999
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRPT\516pa98,PC.doc
20
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - PO (Professional Office)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - O (Professional Office)
CASE NO. - PA98-0516 (Tentative Parcel Map 29132)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - August 18, 1999
R:\STAFFRPT\516pa98.PC.dOc
23
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
LETTER FROM TOD DODSON & ASSOCIATES
DATED MARCH 31, 1999
,,'iTEMEC_FS101\VOLI\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX516pa98.PC.doc
23
· OM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
2150 N ARROWHEAD AVENUE
SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92405
TEL (909) 882-3612 · FAX (909) 882-7015
E-MAIL tda~empirenet.com
March 31, 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
ATTN: Spencer McNeil
911 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
999 ~
Subject:
Follow-up to site visit on small parcel (Ray Schooley property) on
the corner of State Highway 79 and Avenida De Missions in
Temecula, Riverside County, California
Dear Spencer:
This letter is a follow-up to your site visit to the subject property with Ms. Lisa
Kegarice on March 16, 1999 on the parcel adjacent to the Presley
Development, located across Avenida De Missions in Temecula (Ray Schooley
property, see the attached map and aerial photo). Lisa is overwhelmed by
Quino surveys at this moment, so she asked me to transmit this letter to you
in response to your request for additional information. As you may recall, this
site has been isolated from the active channel of Temecula Creek by a large
channel wall or levee (see aerial) installed by Presley during the construction
of their residential tract across (to the east) of the subject site. Tn the field
Lisa indicated that the isolation of this parcel from Temecula Creek's flows has
rendered this parcel no longer subject to 404 jurisdiction.
Subsequent to your and Lisa's visit to the site, you confirmed that the berm
had been permitted by the Corps and the subject parcel was legally isolated
by the channel wall. However, you then questioned whether or not the
southern portion of the parcel had been included in a County open space or
mitigation easement for the Presley project. We have obtained the City maps
and have determined that the parcel was not encumbered in any manner by
the Conservation Easement. The attached map and aerial photo illustrates the
various features (roads, channel wall, conservation easement area and Mr.
Schooley's property) which verify that the conservation easement extends to
the westerly boundary of Mr. Schooley's property and does not encompass any
of his property.
Based on the attached information and your discussions with Lisa on this
matter, we are requesting your concurrence that this parcel is not subject to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and that no further procedural interaction
with the Corps under Section 404 is required for future development of this
site. Should you be to busy to respond to this transmittal, we will proceed
under the assumption that, if we do not hear from you by April ~-5, 1999
regarding this matter, you do concur with these conclusions.
1E want to thank you for your timely help in this matter. :If you have any
questions regarding the contents of this letter or would like any additional
information, please do not hesitate to give Lisa or :[ a call at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Tom Dodson
Attachment
cc: Ray Schooley
Randy Fleming
Larry Harkham
Patricia K. Anders
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
LETTER FROM DEPARTMENT OF ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
DATED APRIL 7, 1999
/',TEMEC_FSI01\VOLI\DEFTS\pLANNING\STAFFRPT\516pa98.pC.doc
24
REPLY TO
ATTEN'rlON
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P,O BOX 532711
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053-2325
April 7, 1999
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
Ray Schooley
c/o Tom Dodson & Associates
Attn: Lisa Kegarice
2150 NorLK~ Arro';;hcad A~,'enue
San Bemardino, California 92405-4002
Dear Ms. Kegarice:
Reference is made to your letter (No. 199915516-SDM) dated April 2, 1999 requesting a
Department of the Army jurisdictional determination for the Ray Schooley property, located
between the north side of the Presley Homes Levee (frontlug Temecula Creek) and the south
side of Highway 79, adjacent to Avertida de Missjones, in the City of Temecula, Riverside
County, California.
Based on the information fumished in your letter and gathered dnring our March 16,
1999 field visit, we have determined that your proposed project does not discharge dredged
or fill material into a water of the United States or an adjacent wetland. Therefore, a project
occurring on the Ray Schooley parcel, as long as it does not extend southwest past the
existing Presley Homes Levee into the Conservation Easement area (see attached drawing), is
not subject to our jurisdiction trader Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a Section 404
permit is not required from our office. Any discharge of dredged or fill material into the
Conservation Easement area (i.e., immediately adjacent to the west end of the Presley Homes
Levee) would require prior Section 404 authorization.
The receipt of yoor letter is appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact
Spencer D. MacNeff of my staff at (213) 452-3418.
Sincereh',
Regulatory Branch
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
LETTER FROM TOM DODSON AND ASSOCIATES
DATED APRIL 9, 1999
\'/TEMEC~FSI01\VOLi\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\516pa98.PC,doc
25
~ OM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
2150 N. ARROWHEAD AVENUE
SAN BERNARDINO. CA 92405
TEL (909) 882-3612 · FAX (909) 882-7015
E-MAIL tda@gmpirenct.com
April 9, 1999
RECEIVED
NtlOtgg9
Mr. Ray Schooley
P. O. Box463010
Escondido, CA 92046-3010
~ENGINEERING VENTURES. I,UC
Dear Ray:
I did not expect the Corps to provide a response to our letter so quickly, but we
received the attached Corps letter in response to our request for jurisdictional
determination for your property on Highway 79 in the City of Temecula They have
concurred that your property is not within their jurisdiction and you do not have to
consult with them to obtain any permits. Combined with the previous determination
transmitted to your office verifying that your property is not subject to a Quino survey,
you should be able to proceed with processing your land use applications in the City of
Temecula without these issues affecting your processing. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide consulting support in this matter, and if my firm can be of any
further assistance, do not hesitate to give me a call.
Sincerely,
Tom Dodson
Attachment
cc: Randy Fleming
Patricia K. Anders
Larry Markham
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
\\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLI\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\516pa98.PC.dOc
26
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Title
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
Tentative Parcel Map 29132 (PA98-0516)
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033,
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
(909) 694-6400
Southwest corner of State Highway 79 and Avenida De Missions in
the City of Temecula.
Raymond B. Schooley
General Plan Designation
Office Professional (O)
Zoning
Professional Office (PO)
Description of Project
To subdivide 6.68 acres of land into five (5) office professional lots.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
North:
East:
South:
West:
None.
Vacant land
Vacant land
Open Space Conservation Easement
Single family residential.
!TEMEC FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\516PA98 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
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
,f Hazards
,/' Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
· / Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact 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, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
%TEMEC_FS101/VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\516PA98 IES.doc
2
Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
C,
Issues and Supporting information Sources
Physically divide an established community?
Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an
environmental effect?
I Confiict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
, natural community conservation plan?
Potentially
Significan~
Impact
NO
Comments:
la.,b.
The subject site is an existing vacant lot; therefore the project will not physically divide an
established community. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use
Designation of Office Professional (O) and the Zoning classification of Professional Office (PC).
The zoning map shows a portion of the property as zoned Open Space (OS). Staff researched the
situation extensively and determined it is simply a mapping error that will be corrected with the
next General Plan update generated by the City. To further research the existing habitat condition
at the southern end of the property, the applicant retained a biologist (Tom Dodson) and
contacted the Army Corps of Engineer to review the site for biological qualities. Both the
biologist and the Army Corps concluded that the property was legally isolated by an existing
channel wall; would not be subject to review or permits from the Corp; and that the subject parcel
was not part of the existing conservation easement south of the subject site. Therefore, the
proposed subdivision map correction will not conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance).
The proposed parcel map will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. There is an existing conservation easement to the south of the subject
site that will not be effected by the proposed subdivision. The applicant has had the Department of the
Army Corps of Engineers and a local biologist (Tom Dodson) review the project. A letter was submitted
from both entities that indicates the subject site is not part of, and will not impact, the adjacent
conservation easement; therefore, no permit would be required by the Corps. Moreover, the subject
site will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation, Therefore, no significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting tnformauon Sources
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
Potentaall¥
Significant
linDact
PoteRtlaH¥
Significant Less Than
Unless MlIigallon Slgnlhcant
Incorporated Impact
NO
Impacl
,,TEMEC FS101\VOLl\DEPTS',PLANNtNG\CEQA',516PA98 IES.doc
3
iC.
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Comments:
2.8.
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 Professional Office (PO).
The proposed subdivision will eventually result in the development of professional office type
development that will provide employment opportunities for local residents. Once the project is
developed, it may cause some 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.b, c. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing as the site is a
vacant property zoned Professional Office. Residential housing is not a permitted use with the
Professional Office classification; therefore, no housing would be permitted and no people will be
displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
NO
i) ,r
n)
iii)
iv)
Issues and Supporting Inforrnatlon Sources
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1998), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
e.
,,TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL 1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\516PA98 IES.doc
4
Comments:
3,a,ii, iii, b., and d.
There may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure,
liquefaction, soil erosion or expansive soils. There are no known fault hazard zones on the
property. However, the project is located in Southern California, an area that is seismically active.
Any potential significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction, which is
consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. Further, the project will be conditioned to
provide soil reports prior to grading and recommendations contained in this report are followed
during construction. 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 and expansive soils. After mitigation measures
are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
There are no known or identified earthquake faults as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.c and 3 a. iv
The City's General Plan identifies the subject site in an area of subsidence, landslides or
liquefaction hazards. Therefore, the project will be conditioned to submit a soils report to review
the conditions of the site related to subsidence, potential for landslides or liquefaction. The soils
report will require any necessary mitigation due to potential hazards to the subject site. With
conditions of approval and corresponding mitigation measures, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
3.e. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project will be required to
hook up to the existing public sewer system. In a transmittal dated January 18, 1999, Rancho
Water has indicated that the subject property is located within the boundaries of Rancho
California-Water District and water services are available. Therefore no significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
c. ,f
Issues and Sulapomng information Sources
r Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
'TEMEC FS101\VOL1\DEPTS/PLANNING\CEQA\516PA98 IES.doc
./
in flooding on- or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
i maP?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
,f
,f
,f
,/
,/
Comments:
The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The
subdivision, and subsequent development projects, will be required to comply with the requirements
of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been
filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any
potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
4.b. ,f.
The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level. 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 or aquifer volume.
Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.c. ,d.
The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area.
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation and/or flooding on- or off-site. 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 hard scape and driveways. While
absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site
design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle
runoff which is created. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
4.e. Due to the small scale of the proposed subdivision, and ultimately the future development, the
project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The
~TEMEC FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA',516PA98 IES,doc
6
project will be conditioned to accommodate and handle drainage as a result of the subject site. The
project will be conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding properties. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.g.,h.
The project will have a less than significant impact on people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding because the project site is located outside of the 100 year floodway. However;
the project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General
Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency
response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate service
provision as the City develops. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.i.
The project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. As stated above, the project is
not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. The subject site is south of the Temecula Creek
Conservation Easement riparian area. However, a drainage channel was constructed to the southeast
of the subject site to accommodates the 100 year flood flow from the Temecula Creek channel.
Therefore, the proposed subdivision and subsequent development would not cause a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee, dam or the adjacent ripanan
area.
4.j.
The project site will not be subject to inundation by sieche, tsunam~ or mudflow as these events
are not known to happen in this region.
AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
la,
'c.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Signihcant Unless M~tigat~on Slgnlhcant
Impact Incorporated impact
i
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
No
Impact
CommeRts:
5.a., b. and c.
The project will not conflict with applicable air quality plans nor violate air quality or pollution
standards. The project proposes to subdivide a 6.68 acre parcel into five Professional Office
zoned lots. The subdivision, and future development, is anticipated to be within the square
footage threshold for potentially significant air quality impact established by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District as depicted on page 6-10, Table 6.2, The future development will
be subject to a separate environmental review. At that time, the exact project, and square
',TEMEC FS101\VOLl\DEPTS/PLANNING\CEQA\516PA98 IES,doc
7
5.d.
5.e.
footages will be known and further assessed for compliance with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
There are no known sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity. The
project occupants will not generate significant pollutants. Therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The project may create objectionable odors during the construction of Professional Office uses.
However, these impacts are anticipated to be of short duration and not result in a significant
impact.
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks?
Potem4alty
Potentially Sign~hcant Less Than
,f
,f
,f
,f
Comments:
6.a,b and c
There will be an increase in vehicle trips on adjacent streets once the proposed subdivision is
developed. Due to the proposed size of the parcels, each parcel is estimated to be built out with
approximately 30,000 square feet of professional office use per parcel. Per the City's Traffic
Engineer, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) estimates the total vehicle trips per day
for approximately 150,000 (30,000 x 5) square feet of professional office use would be
approximately 2500 daily trips. However, the City's Traffic Engineer also indicated that the
future professional office development will have a less than significant impact to the existing road
system due to the maximum capacity of the existing road system. The existing roadway
(Highway 79 South) was built to accommodate 50,000 average daily trips. Therefore, it is
anticipated that the existing roadway system is capable of handling the incremental increase in
traffic due to the future development as a result of this subdivision. No further traffic studies
were required for this project. The developer of either parcel will be required to contribute traffic
signal and public facility development impact fees prior to the issuance of any building permits.
No significant impacts are anticipated.
%TEMEC FS 101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA',516PA98 IES.doc
8
6.d, e and g
The project design will not negatively impact emergency access, safe traffic conditions nor efforts
to promote alternative transportation. As a requirement of the project, the developer is being
required to reserve a future roadway through the development to comply with the General Plan
Circulation Element intent of the proposed future roadway system in the subject area.
6.f
The proposed project is for the subdivision of land; therefore no parking is required. Subsequent
development of the proposed parcels will be required to comply with the City's Development
Code parking requirements for the Professional Office uses.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Significant Unless Mitigation
C,
Issues and SuoDortmg Inlormat~on Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect of federatly protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Less Than
Comments:
7.a. thru d.
The zoning map shows a portion of the property as zoned Open Space (OS). Staff researched the
situation and determined it was simply a mapping error that will be corrected with the next
General Plan update. In addition, the applicant retained a biologist (Tom Dodson) and contacted
the Army Corps of Engineer to review the site for biological qualities. Both the biologist and the
!\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\516PA98 IES.doc
9
Army Corps reviewed the site and concluded that the proposed project does not discharge
dredged or fill material into a water of the United States or an adjacent wetland; that the subject
parcel was legally isolated by an existing channel wall; and the parcel was not part of the existing
conservation easement south of the subject site. The Corps also stated that a project occurring
on the subject parcel, as long as the project does not extend southwest past the existing Presley
Homes Levee into the Conservation Easement area, is not subject to their jurisdiction under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a Section 404 permit is not required from the
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, upon the review and confirmation of the
Army Corps of Engineers and the Biologist, it is anticipated that the project will not have a
significant impact on endangered species, riparian habitat, wetlands, wildlife corridors, or
conservation plans.
Furthermore, once future development occurs on site, the project will be reviewed and
conditioned for appropriate interface between the developed area and the conservation area
immediately to the south and the residential development to the east of the subject property.
e and f.
The project will be conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula
Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee.
The city does not have an adopted Natural Community Conservation Plan or tree preservation
policy or ordinance. With conditions of approval, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues and Supl3omng Information Sources
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
~ general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Signihcant NO
Comments:
8.a. and b.
The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources nor in the loss of an
available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified the
City of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which
have the potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate.
However, these areas are determined as not containing deposits of significant economic value
based upon available data in reports prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975.
,/TEMEC FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\516PA98 IES.doc
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
ig.
Issues and Supporting Inforrnat~on Sources
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Crate a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
CommeRts:
9.a., b., c. and d.
The project will not cause a significant hazard to the public through the use or release of
hazardous substances since none are proposed in this request to subdivide land. It is not
anticipated that large quantities of hazardous or toxic materials will be associated with the future
development of these professional office parcels. All future development will be reviewed and
conditioned by the Riverside County Fire Department and the Department of Environmental
Health. These two agencies will ensure compliance with all use, disposal and discharge of any
potentially hazardous materials, and will condition the project accordingly. Therefore, no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.e. and f.
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public or
private airstrip. No significant impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal.
~',TEMEC FS 101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\516PA98 IES.doc
9.g. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede
emergency response or evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
9.h. According to the Riverside County Fire Department and the corresponding map listing areas of
high fire hazards, the subject property will not expose people or structures to a risk or loss due to
wildland fires. Future development will be required to satisfy fire flow requirements, street widths,
design and fuel modification requirements, as established by the fire and police departments.
~10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Issues and Supl3or[m~ Information Sources
Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
,7
,r
,7
Comments:
10.a.,c.
The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site ~s
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. However,
long-term noise generated by this project would be within the limits of the General Plan standards
for office professional development. Therefore with compliance with the General Plan noise
standards, the impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.
10.b, e and f.
The project site is not near uses with excessive groundborne noise levels, nor is it near airport
land uses. No exposure to excessive noise levels from these uses are anticipated.
10.d. The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during
construction. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at
100 feet which is considered very annoying. However. this source of noise from construction of
the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant.
Furthermore, construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of
activity in residential areas. No significant impacts are anticipated.
'\TEMEC FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\516pA98 IES.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:
issues and SuDporllng Information Sources
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associates with the provisions of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services?
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Comments:
11 .a., b., c., e. and f.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered
fire, police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will incrementally increase the need
for some services. However, the project will contribute its fair share to the maintenance or
provision of services from these entities. Due to its small scale, less than significant impacts are
anticipated.
11 .d. 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. The cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the payment of
applicable School Fees. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
/\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\516PA98 IES.doc
Issues and SuDpo~[~ng InfOrrnat~On Sources
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmentaJ effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
. drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
]3
NO
; ; construction of which could cause significant
; ~ environmental effects?
d. illave sufficient water supplies available to serve the
~ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
, new or expanded entitlemerits needed?
e. i Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
I provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
i adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
I demand in addition to the provider's existing
, commitments?
f' i Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
. accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
g' ~ regulations related to solid waste?
12.a., b. and e.
The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new
treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an
incremental effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
for the City's General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not
significantly impact wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General
Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Moreover, the project will
be conditioned to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that will be
monitored by the Department of Public Works.
12.c. The project will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities. The drainage
system for the project site is already in place and drainage fees are required by the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley
Area Drainage Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated.
12.d. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water
entitlements. The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project
will have an incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to
supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states:
"implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater
services (p. 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate
to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.f. and g.
The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid
waster created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction
and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
issues and Supporting Intorrnatlon Sources
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
,/TEMEC FS101/VOLl~DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\516PA98 IES.doc
Potentially
Potentially S~gnfficant Less Than
Significant Unless M~t~gat~on Sigmf~cant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No
'b.
=C.
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building
within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
,/
,/
Comments:
13.a.,
b. and c.
The project will not substantially degrade a scenic vista, resources, or visual character. The
proposed subdivision and subsequent future professional office development of the five parcels
will comply with the City's Development Code requirements governing such development.
Moreover, the project(s) will be conditioned to create an appropriate buffer or transitional zone
between the existing single family residential development to the east, and the conservation
easement to the south. Therefore, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.d.
The project could potentially impact nighttime views by creating new sources of light or glare.
However, the project will be conditioned to comply with Ordinance No. 655, an ordinance
regulating light pollution within the City. After mitigation measures are in place, no significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES, Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.57
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
i Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Signilicant Unless Mitigation S~gnfficam
Impact Incorporated Impact
NO
ImpaCt
,f
Comments:
14 a thru d
The site is not located in an area that has high paleontological or archaelogical sensitivity pursuant
to the General Plan (Figures, 5-6 and 5-7). The proposed application for a subdivision of land
does not include any grading or disturbance of the site, However, future development will be
routed to the U.C.R Anthropology Department who will recommend what studies, if any, should
be required. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project,
,\TEMEC FS101/VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\516PA98 IES,doc
15. RECREATION, Would the project:
tssues and Supporting Information Sources
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Significant
Comments:
15.a. and b.
The project is the subdivision of land and will not increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project is not required to pay any Quimby fees
as part of the development process because the map is for professional office type uses. The
City has been determined that such do not substantially contribute to recreational facilities and
therefore, commercial/office uses are not required to pay a portion of fees (Quimby) for
recreational facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
C,
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are 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?
Comments:
Potent~aUv
Significant Unless Mitigation
Impact
Less Than
S~gnificant
Irnpact
I',TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA,516PA98 IES.dOC
16.b.
16.c.
Due to the subject site being reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers and a biologist (Tom
Dodson), it has been determined that the subject property does not 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 selFsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. A biologist and the Army
Corps reviewed the site and concluded that the proposed project does not discharge dredged or
fill material into a water of the United States or an adjacent wetland; that the subject parcel was
legally isolated by an existing channel wall; and the parcel was not part of the existing
conservation easement south of the subject site. The Corps also stated that a project occurring
on the subject parcel, as long as the project does not extend southwest past the existing Presley
Homes Levee into the Conservation Easement area, is not subject to their jurisdiction under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a Section 404 permit is not required from the
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, upon the review and confirmation of the
Army Corps of Engineers and the biologist, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
The cumulative effects from the project not considered significant as the subject site is being
development in conformance with the City of Temecula Development Code and General Plan. All
cumulative effects for the various land uses of the subject site as well as the surrounding
developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Given the projects
consistency with the Development Code and General Plan, the cumulative impact is not
considerable.
The project does not have the potential to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
directly or indirectly. The subdivision is consistent with the Development Code and General Plan.
Furthermore, the future development will be reviewed and conditioned to have a transitional zone
to the existing residential development to the east and the conservation easement to the south to
minimize any potential adverse impacts on human beings.
17. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EtR,
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 earlier 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
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
,,/TEMEC FS101/VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\516PA98 IES.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
/\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLI\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\516pa98-PC.doc
27
Land Use Planning
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA99-0516
(Tentative Parcel Map No. 29132)
Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation.
Ensure that development of the site complies with Conditions of Approva~
Grading plans shall be submitted for review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy or regulation.
Ensure that development of the site complies with Conditions of Approval
A Consistency Check process shall be conducted.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Department of Building & Safety and Planning Department.
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 people to impacts from seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
G:\Depts%PLANNING\CEQA\516pa98.Mitigation Monitoring Pgm.doc
1
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people to risks to life or property due to expansive soils.
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 Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Install septic tanks where soils are incapable of adequately supporting
their use,
Ensure that soils are prepared based upon percolation testing.
The site shall be inspected during construction for compliance with the
recommendations from approved percolation tests.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department,
Water
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The project will violate water quality or waste discharge requirements
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:
The project will substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
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).
G:\Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\516pa98.Mitigation Monitoring Pgrn.doc
2
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Biological Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Hazardous Materials
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and traffic
impacts.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecuia Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Department.
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
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.
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss involving wildland
fires,
Payment of Development Impact Fee for Fire Mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
G:\Depts\PLANNING\CEQA%516pa98,Mitigation Monitoring Pgm.doc
3
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Noise
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss involving wildland
fires.
Ensure adequate fire flow, street widths and fuel modification
requirements are met.
Review of construction plans for compliance with Fire and Building
Codes.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building & Safety Department and Fire Department.
Expose people to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels.
Construction activity shall comply with City ordinances regulating the
hours of activity in residential areas.
City inspectors shall periodically monitor the construction site to ensure
compliance.
During active construction of the site.
Building & Safety Department and Department of Public Works.
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.
G:\DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA%516pa98.MitigatiOn Monitoring Pgm.doc
4
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities,
including roads.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic
impacts, and public facilities.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15,06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Department.
Aesthetics
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare
that could affect the Palomar Observatory.
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Building & Safety Department.
G:\Depts%PLANNING\CEQA%516pa98,Mitigation Monitoring Pgm.doc
5
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August18,1999
Planning Application No. PA99-0197
Prepared By: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA99-0197; and,
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- recommending approval of
an ordinance entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING THE
SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF TITLE 17 TO ESTABLISH
DETAILED STANDARDS FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE
HOME FACILITIES, RE-CATEGORIZE TEMPORARY
USES, AMEND YARD AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL
ZONES, CLARIFY FLOOR AREA RATIO BONUS
PROVISIONS, AND MAKE NUMEROUS MINOR
MODIFICATIONS TO TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-0197).
BACKGROUND
Staff periodically brings back development code amendments and clarifications to the Planning
Commission and City Council when the need for possible changes has been identified. These
proposed Development Code amendments represent a compilation of a number of identified
changes into a single staff report and ordinance. The proposed ordinance would amend several
areas of the Development Code to address the following:
The processing and approval of small and large family day care home facilities;
The categorization of temporary uses;
The clarification of residential lot sizes and accessory structure setback
requirements;
The enhancement and updating of senior and affordable housing provisions; and
Other minor clean up and typographic corrections.
ANALYSIS
Lame Family Day Care Facilities
The City has recently received a number of inquiries for large family day care home facilities.
According to State Law, large day care homes can provide care for up to 14 children. After
R:\STAFFRPT~197PA99 PC.doc
reviewing the current code provisions, a number of corrections were proposed. The proposed
Development Code amendments would (1) differentiate between small and large family day care
home facilities, (2) provide a detail process about how the large facilities would .be reviewed and
approved (in accordance with State Law); and (3) will clarify who has the authority to approve the
application. These corrections are contained in Sections 1,2 and 3 of the ordinance in Attachment
No. 2.
Re-Classify Temporary Uses
After several years of processing applications for Temporary Use Permits, staff has determined that
not all applications need the same level of review. Consequently, staff is proposing that temporary
uses be divided into two categories, major and minor. The permits for the major temporary uses
would continue to be processed much as they have been, The permits for minor temporary uses
would normally be approved either over-the-counter or, at most, a few days after the application
had been submitted. The list of temporary uses that is shown in the draft ordinance is the same
list of uses that is shown in the current code. These corrections are contained in Section 4 of the
ordinance in Attachment No. 2.
Clarify Table 17.06.040 and AccessoN Use Setbacks
The residential zoning chapter in the Code has a number of provisions that seem to cause
confusion. As a result, staff has identified the following clarifications and modifications to the
Residential Development Standards table and the setback provisions for accessory structures and
second units. These corrections are contained in Section 5 of the ordinance in Attachment No. 2.
Update the Senior and Affordable Housinq Provisions
As the City's Affordable Housing Program begins to take on more diverse projects, staff has
identified a need to provide additional detail and to ensure that the City Development Code
complies with State Law. The proposed amendment further subdivides Section 17,06.050.H into
a subsection on senior housing and congregate care and another on affordable housing. Though
both areas relate to the need to provide appropriate housing to members of the community who
often have difficulty finding appropriate housing, the specific requirements that apply to each are
very different. The amendment also further mimics the provisions of state law in terms of the
density bonus incentives and the development standard concessions. These differences
necessitated the need to further clarify this section of the Development Code. T. hese corrections
are contained in Sections 6 and 7 of the ordinance in Attachment No. 2,
Other Minor Clean-up Items
Section 8 contains numerous clarifications, minor modifications, and typographic corrections that
staff has identified. The only issue of note is the cleanup of the provisions for commercial floor
area ratio incentives. The proposed changes further clarify the approval process and attempt to
better define when the incentive can be approved.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff prepared an Initial Environmental Study for the proposed Development Code amendments.
The analysis indicated that the project would have not impact on the environment. As a result,
staff is recommending that a Negative Declaration be approved.
R:\STAFFRP~197PA99 PC.doc
2
Attachments:
PC Resolution No. 99- - Blue Page 4
Proposed Ordinance - Blue Page 7
Initial Study - Blue Page 8
R:~STAFFRPT~197PA99 PC.doc
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
R:\STAFFRPT~197PA99 PC.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AMENDING THE SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF TITLE
'17 TO ESTABLISH DETAILED STANDARDS FOR LARGE
FAMILY DAY CARE HOME FACILITIES, RE-CATEGORIZE
TEMPORARY USES, AMEND YARD AND SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN
RESIDENTIAL ZONES, CLARIFY FLOOR AREA RATIO BONUS
PROVISIONS, AND MAKE NUMEROUS MINOR MODIFICATIONS
TO TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
(PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-0197)"
WHEREAS, On November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, On January 25, 1995, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the
City's Development Code; and
WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend the adopted Development Code; and
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library,
Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce;
and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on July 21, 1999, 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 RECOMMENDS THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING THE
SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF TITLE 17 TO ESTABLISH DETAILED STANDARDS FOR LARGE
FAMILY DAY CARE HOME FACILITIES, RE-CATEGORIZE TEMPORARY USES, AMEND YARD
AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES,
CLARIFY FLOOR AREA RATIO BONUS PROVISIONS, AND MAKE NUMEROUS MINOR
MODIFICATIONS TO TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNING
APPLICATION PA99-0197)" THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM ATTACHED TO THIS
RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A.
R:~STAFFRPT~197PA99 PC.dOC
5
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of August, 1999.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duty adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of August,
1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRP'F~197PA99 PC,doc
6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 99-
R:\STAFFRPT~197PA99 PC.doc
7
ORDINANCE 99-__
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AMENDINGTHE SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF TITLE 17
TO ESTABLISH DETAILED STANDARDS FOR LARGE FAMILY
DAY CARE HOME FACILITIES, RE-CATEGORIZE TEMPORARY
USES, AMEND YARD AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, CLARIFY
FLOOR AREA RATIO BONUS PROVISIONS, AND MAKE
NUMEROUS MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO TITLE 17 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION PA99-
0197)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 17.06.050.J of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
Family Day Care Home Facilities.
Small family day cam home facilities, as defined in Chapter 3.4, Division 2 of
the Health and Safety Code, are permitted in all residential zoning districts.
Although no specific permit is required, compliance with the performance
standards contained in Section 17.06.050.J.3 of the Temecula Municipal
Code is required.
Large family day care home facilities, as defined in Chapter 3.4, Division 2 of
the Health and Safety Code, are permitted in all residential zoning districts
with the approval of a permit for a large family day care home facility pursuant
to the provisions of Section 17.04.015 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Compliance with the performance standards contained in Sections
17.06.050.J.3 and J.4 of the Temecula Municipal Code are required.
3. All day care home facilities shall comply with the following requirements.
All day care facilities shall be state licensed and shall be operated
according to all applicable State and local health and safety
requirements and regulations.
The facility shall comply with all land use regulations and site
development standards of the zoning district in which it is located.
An outdoor play area shall be located in the rear yard area. Stationary
play equipment shall not be located in required side yard setbacks or
in the actual front yard. The outdoor play areas shall be securely
locked and appropriately landscaped.
A solid decorative fence or wall at least five feet in height shall be
constructed on all property lines, except in the front yard. Materials,
textures, colors, and design of the fence or wall shall be compatible
with on-site and adjacent properties. All fences and walls shall
\\TEMEC_FS201 '{)ATA',DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~197pa99 - DC Amendment (VV X 3).doc
1
provide for safety with controlled points of entry.
All on-site lighting shall be stationary, directed away from adjacent
properties and public rights-of-way, and of an intensity appropriate to
the use it is serving.
In addition to the provisions of Subsection J.3 above, large family day care
home facilities shall comply with the following requirements.
In the LM distdct large day care facilities shall not be located within
three hundred feet of another large family day care facility.
Any additional design or operational requirements that may be
necessary to ensure compatibility of the facility with the surrounding
area and protect the public health and safety."
Section 2. Section 17.04.015 creating Large Family Day Care Permits is hereby
added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows:
"17.04.015 Large Family Day Care Permits
Purpose and Intent. A large family day care permit is intended to allow the
establishment of large family day care home facilities, as defined in Chapter 3.4,
Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, in a manner that is compatible with the
surrounding area and that protects the general public health, safety and welfare.
Application Requirements. Applications for large family day care permits shall be
completed in accordance with the Section 17.03.030 of the Temecula Municipal
Code.
Notice. Upon the determination that a large family day care permit application is
complete, the following shall occur:
A public notice shall be sent to every residence within one hundred (100) feet
of the site. The notice shall be mailed first class and postage pre-paid to the
applicant and all occupants (at the site address) and property owners.
2. The Notice shall indicate the following information:
The location and address of the proposed large family day care home
facility.
A description of the proposed activity, including the maximum number
of permitted children and the days of the week and hours of the day
that the facility is proposed to operate.
A statement that the City will approve the proposed large family day
care administratively unless a request for headng is filed with the
director of planning.
The fourteen (14) calendar day pedod within which a written request
for a hearing can be made.
\\TEMEC_FS201 tDATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~197pa99 - DC Amendment (~N X 3),doc
2
Headng. If a written request for a headng is filed with the director of planning dudng
the fourteen (14) calendar day public headng request pedod, a noticed public headng
shall he scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the application. The
notice of public headrig shall be sent to all residents and properly owners within three
hundred (300) feet of the proposed facility. The requirements of Section
17.03.040.B.2 of the Temecula Municipal Code to notify at least thirty (30) property
owners does not apply to the requirements of this headng notice.
Approval. A large family day care permit may be appmved, conditionally approved
or denied, either administratively by the director of planning or by the Planning
Commission after the public hearing, If no requests for a public headng are received
during the fourteen (14) calendar day hearing request pedod, the director of planning
may approve or conditionally approve the large family day care home permit. As
determined to be necessary and appropriate, the director may refer any initial
application to the Planning Commission. Decisions of the Planning Commission may
be appealed to the City Council, pursuant to Section 17.03,090 of the Temecula
Municipal Code,
Findings. The director of planning or Planning Commission, may approve or
conditionally approve a large family day care permit only when the following findings
can be made:
The proposed use is compatible with the nature, character and use of the
surrounding area.
The large family day care use will not adversely effect adjacent residents or
structures.
The nature and location of the proposed use will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, or welfare of the community and does not concentrate children
in an dangerous location.
Notice of Decision. A copy of the notice of decision shall be provided to the applicant
in accordance with Section 17.03.040. E of the of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Revocation. A large family day care permit may be revoked or modified by the
director in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.03,080 of the Temecula
Municipal Code."
Section 3.
described below.
Chapter 17.03 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended as
the following row:
Table 17.03.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to add
Approval
Large Family Day Care
Home Facility ***
Administrative Planning Planning
Approval Director Commission
X X
City Council
B. Add Footnote *** to Table 17.03.010 that reads as follows: "Large Family Day
Care Home Facilities may be approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.04,015."
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~ATAM:)EPTS%PLANNING%STAFFRPT~197pa99 - DC Amendment (VV X 3).doc
3
C. Footnote 1 of Table 17.06.040 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Subject
to the provisions of Section 17.04.015 and Section 17.06.050.J."
SECTION 4. Section 17.04,020.B of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"B.
Permitted Uses. Temporary uses are divided into two general categories, minor and
major. Major temporary uses have a potential to create health and safety problems,
can occur on undeveloped property, could create traffic problems, and/or could
potentially disrupt community life. Minor temporary uses occur on developed private
property, generally commercial, for very shod time pedods. These temporary uses
produce little noise, and have no impacts to adjacent properties or to traffic and
public safety.
Major Temporary Uses. The following major temporary uses may be
permitted, subject to the issuance of a temporary use permit.
Real estate offices and model homes within approved development
projects.
On- and off-site contractors' construction yards in conjunction with an
approved active development project.
Trailers, coaches or mobile homes as a temporary residence of the
property owner when a valid residential building permit is in force. The
permit may be granted for up to one hundred eighty days, or upon
expiration of the building permit, whichever first occurs.
Christmas tree sales lots, however, a permit shall not be required
when such sale is in conjunction with an established commercial
business holding a valid business license, provided such activity shall
be only held from November 1st through December 31st.
Fairs, festivals and concerts, when not held within premises designed
to accommodate such events, such as auditoriums, stadiums, or
other public assembly facilities.
f. Pumpkin sales lots.
g. Seasonal sale of agricultural products.
Outdoor temporary swap meets or auctions, limited to two events per
calendar year, not exceeding four consecutive days.
Minor Temporary Uses. The following minor temporary uses may be
permitted, subject to the issuance of a temporary use permit.
Outdoor display and sales of merchandise within commercial land use
districts, limited to two events per calendar year, not exceeding four
consecutive days, including only merchandise customarily sold on the
premises by a permanently established business.
b. Public health and safety activities including emergency clinics and
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~:)ATA%OEPT$'~LANNING~STAFFRPT~197pa99 ~ DC Amendment (~/X 3).doc 4
temporary inoculation centers.
c. Sidewalk sale and vendor stands (non-mobile).
d. Flower sales (non-mobile).
e. Special lighting exhibits including spotlights.
Veterinary clinics on developed sites that are not in conjunction with
a veterinary facility (i.e., pet store, groomer).
For temporary uses that am not listed in Subsections B.1 and B.2, the director
of planning may, at his/her sole discretion, determine whether an unlisted
temporary use should be classified as major or minor. This determination
shall be based upon the similadties and differences with the above listed
uses and an assessment of the proposed temporary use's compatibility with
the zoning distdct and surrounding land uses."
SECTION 5. The following changes are hereby made to Chapter 17.06.
A. Section 17.06.050.D.3 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Separation.
Accessory structures shall maintain a minimum separation of at least three feet from all other
structures unless attached to the main structure. Except that storage and utility structures that are
larger than 120 square feet shall not be located within six feet of another structure. Eaves or roof
overhangs may not extend more than 1 foot into this six foot area from either direction."
B. Add the following lines to Table 17.06.050D:
Accessory Structure
Detached Second Unit
Detached Granny Flat
Front Setback
Not permitted in the
actual front yard.
Not permitted in the
actual front yard.
Rear Setback
Refer to the rear
yard setbacks in
Table 17.06.040
Refer to the rear
yard setbacks in
Table 17.06.040
Side Setback
Refer to the side
yard setbacks in
Table 17.06.040
Refer to the side
yard setbacks in
Table 17.06.040
C. In Table 17.06.050.D, add a footnote 2 to the Storage/Utility enclosure
accesso~ structure line description, and add the following text to the end of the table. "2.
Accessory structures with walls must be separated from other accessory and primary structures by
at least six feet."
D. To the end of Table 17.06.050[:), add a Footnote 3 that reads as follows:
"Second units and granny flats that are attached to the main structure shall comply with the setback
and yard requirements contained in Table 17.06.040."
E. Amend Paragraph 17.06.050.M.3 to read as follows: "An attached second
unit on a residential lot shall have a floor area between four hundred and one thousand two hundred
square feet."
SECTION 6. Section 17.06.050.H is hereby amended to read as follows:
"H. Senior Housing/Congregate Care Facilities/Affordable Housing. Senior housing,
congregate cam facilities, and affordable housing projects are permitted in the zoning
\\TEMEC_FS201%DATA'~DEPTS~c~LANNING~STAFFRPT~197pa99 - DC Amendment {~V X 3),doe
5
distdcts identified below subject to the approval of a development plan. Affordable
senior housing projects shall comply with the affordable housing provisions contained
in Subsection 17.06.050.H.3.
Senior housing shall comply with all the provisions of the Development Code
unless modified by the following provisions:
a. The maximum density
The net livable area for each dwelling unit shall not be less than four
hundred (400) square feet for an efficiency unit, five hundred fifty
(550) square feet for a one-bedroom unit, and seven hundred (700)
square feet for a two-bedroom unit. Kitchenettes may be permitted,
provided they are sized to meet the immediate needs of the
occupants of the unit.
Congregate care projects shall comply with all the provisions of the
Development Code unless modified by the following provisions:
The maximum densities for congregate care facilities are not limited
specifically to density requirements so long as all the site
development standards are met (i.e. required setbacks, parking,
landscaping, open space, etc.)
The handicapped units shall be distdbuted equally throughout the
project and shall comply with the standards set forth in Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations.
Affordable housing and affordable senior housing projects are entitled to
receive vadous incentives provided the project meets the requirements of
Section 65915 of the Califomia Government Code. Affordable housing
projects will receive at least one incentive from Subsection 17.06.050.H.3.a
and at least one concession from Subsection 17.06.050.H.3.b. The project
incentives and concessions are as follows:
Density Incentives. Affordable housing projects are entitled to receive
an increase in the allowable density of at least 25% over the density
target in each residential zoning district. The maximum densities for
affordable housing projects are as follows:
In the H residential zoning district, the maximum density shall
be thirty (30) units per acre.
ii.
In the M residential zoning district, the maximum density shall
be eighteen (20) units per acre.
iii.
In the LM, L-2, and L-1 residential zoning districts the
maximum density shall be twelve (12) units per acre.
In all approved Specific Plans, the maximum density bonus
shaft not exceed 50% of the target density in the planning
area.
\\TEMEC_FS201 ',DATA%DEPTS%PLANNING~,STAFFRPT~197pa99 - DC Amendment (VV X 3).doe
6
Development Standard Concessions. Any of the following
development standard concessions may be granted by the approval
authority for the project, unless a finding is made that these
concessions are not necessary to provide the affordable housing
units being proposed:
i. An increase in the amount of required lot coverage;
ii. A modification to the setback or required yard provisions;
iii. An increase in the maximum allowable building height;
iv. A reduction in the amount of required on-site parking;
A reduction in the amount of onsite landscaping. except that
no reduction in on-site recreational amenities may not be
approved unless the affordable housing is in a close and
easily accessible proximity to a public park with recreational
amenities;
vi. A reduction in the minimum lot area; or,
vii.
Approval of an affordable housing project in the Professional
Office zone with the approval of a conditional use permit.
The provisions of this Subsection also applies to all approved specific plans
within the City of Temecula unless the specific plan contains specific
standards for the type of housing being considered."
SECTION 7. The following provisions related to senior and congregate care housing are
also amend as described below:
A. Amend Footnote 1 of Table 17.06.040 to read as follows: 'Affordable
housing and congregate care facilities may exceed the stated densities pursuant to the
provisions of Section 17.06.050, H."
B. In Table 17.08.030, add a notation for Footnote 5 to the 'Congregate care
housing for the eldedy' and 'Senior citizen housing" uses in the Description of Use category and
add a Footnote 5 that reads as follows: "in the CC, SC, HT and PO Zones, all senior housing
residential projects shall use the development and performance standards for the High Density
Residential zone and the provisions contained in Section 17.06.050.H. In the NC Zone, all senior
housing residential projects shall use the development and performance standards for the
Medium Density Residential zone and the provisions contained in Section 17.06.050. H."
C. To Table 17.08.030, add the following line:
Description of Use NC CC HT I SC PO BP LI
Affordable housing a C - -
D. Add Footnote 6 to the end of Table 17.08.030: "6. Subject the provissons
contained in Subsection 17.06.050.H."
SECTION 8. The following provisions of the Temecula Municipal Code are also amended
~TEMEC_FS201 '~DATA~DEPTS~LANNING~STAFFRP'r~197pa99 - DC Amendment (VV X 3).doe 7
as follows:
follows:
The first three lines of Table 17.06.040 are hereby amended to read as
Minimum net lot area
(square feet)
Minimum net lot area
(acres)
Maximum number of
dwelling units per acre
LOT AREA
- 7,200 7,200 7,200
10 2.5 I ½
12 20
B. In Table 17.08.030, delete the phrase "less than 5,000 sq. ft." from
"Governmental offices" description of use.
C. Section 17.08.050.A is hereby amended to read as follows:
Commercial/Office/industrial Incentives - Increases in the Floor Area Ratio. As a part
of the process of reviewing and approving an application for a development plan or
conditional use permit, the approval authority may consider an increase in the
maximum allowable intensity as indicated in Tables 17.08.040.A and B. The amount
of the increased intensity shall not exceed the maximum of the density range or floor
area ratio stated for the specific land use designation. The requested increase may
not be approved if the city engineer determines that the increased intensity would
create an unmitigatable impact upon traffic circulation or would overburden any
utilities serving the area. To be eligible for an increase in the floor area ratio, the
applicant must meet at least one of the following criteria.
The project includes use(s) which provide outstanding and exceptional
benefits to the city with respect to the employment, fiscal, social and
economic needs of the community. Examples include: the provision of
affordable housing that is easily accessible to and within close proximity to
convenient shopping and employment, accessibility to mass transit facilities,
and creative mixtures of land uses, housing types and densities.
The project provides exceptional architectural and landscape design
amenities which reflect an attractive image and character for the city.
Examples include: extraordinary architectural design and landscaped entry
features (may be within the public right-of-way), public trail systems, public
plazas or gathering spaces, and recreational features in excess of what is
required by this code.
The project provides enhanced public facilities that are needed by the city,
beyond those required mitigation impact measures. Examples include: the
provision of community meeting centers, enhanced transportation
improvements, off-site traffic signalization, police or fire stations, public
recreation facilities, and common parking areas or structures to serve the
community."
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~197pa99 - DC Amendment ON X 3).doc
8
D. Section 17.24.040.G is hereby amended to read as follows: =Facilities with
over twenty-five vehicle parking spaces shall provide a minimum of one motorcycle parking space,
plus one space for each additional twenty five required parking spaces. After the initial one hundred
(100) parking spaces, one additional motorcycle parking space for each additional one hundred
required spaces shall also be provided."
E. In Table 17.03.010, Conditional Use Permits - new building. less than 10,000
sq. ft or greater, delete the words "less than".
F. in Section 17.08.050.P.6, change the word "creams" to "creates".
G. In Section 17.16.070, incorporate the following specific plan references
adopted by Ordinance 98-13:"SP-9 Redhawk Specific Plan (Previous reference: SP #217)" and
"SP-10 Vail Ranch Specific Plan (Previous reference: SP #223)."
H. In Section 17.22.040, the second sentence is hereby amended to read as
follows: "When an application for a planned development overlay district is filed, the concurrent
preparation and approval of a development plan may be required by the director of planning to
ensure that all appropriate site development details and compatibility issues are addressed."
I. In the firat sentence of 17.24.020.E, change the word "my" to "any".
J. In Section 17.24.050.A, after the words "within enclosed garages shall" insert
the words "have an interior dimension of at least".
K. In the title and first sentence of Section 17.24.050.1, change the words "From"
to "Front" and "from" to "front".
Modify the building size column in Table 17.24.060 to read as follows:
"10,000 or less
10,001 to 20,000
20,001 to 50,000
50,001 or greater
M. In Section 17.28.040.Q, correct the code citation from "17.12.060" to
"17.28.060".
SECTION 9. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are severable and if for any mason 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 10. Effective Date. 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 and cause copies of
this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places.
SECTION '11. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City
Councilmembers voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in
said City.
SECTION 12. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause
the same to be posted as required by law.
\\TEMEC_FS201~DATA~)EPTS~LANNING~STAFFRPT~197pa99 - DC Amendment (W X 3).doe
9
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of
,1999.
A'I'I'EST:
Steven J Ford, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 99- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the th day of ,1999 and that thereafter, said Ordinance
was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the th day of
,1999, by the following vote:
AYES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
\\TEMEC_FS201 ~DATA~DEPTS~PLANNING~STAFFRPT~t 97p~i19 - DC Amendment (~N X 3).doc
10
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
INITIAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRPI~197PA99 PC.doc
8
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Title
Development Code Amendment (PA99-0197)
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033,
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
David Hogan, Senior Planner
(909) 694-6400
Citywide
Project Sponsors Name and Address City of Temecula
General Plan Designation
Not applicable
Zoning Not applicable
Description of Project
A comprehensive amendment to the Development Code to do the
following:
1, The processing and approval of small and large family
day care home facilities;
2. The further categodzation of temporary uses to facilitate
permit streamlining;
3, The clarification of residential lot sizes and accessory
structure setback requirements;
4. The enhancement and updating of senior and affordable
housing provisions;
5, The modification of the commercial floor area ratio
increase incentive; and
6, Other minor dean up and typographic corrections,
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting Not applicable
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
None.
R:\CEQA\197PA99 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
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. 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 "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an eadier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the eadier 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, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an eadier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Date
Pdnted name
For
R:~CEQA\197PA99 IES.d~c
2
1. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
Physically divide an established community?
Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
,/
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Pmentiazly
Slgfuhcanl
Impacl.
ImpHd
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
a. Expose people or structures to potential'substantial
adverse effects, including the dsk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
R:%CEQA%197PA99 IES.doc
3
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B
of the Uniform Building Code (19cJ4), creating substantial
dsks to life or property?
Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
__ ..d S.em,,d~ ~.e=~.~.
ViOlate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that them
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a Iowedng of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which perTnits have been granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or dver, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially altar the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or dver, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapbed on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or rediract flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a signiflcent dsk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
./
./
,/
R:~CEQA\I97PA99 IES.doc
4
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteda pollutent for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Issue~ and SuglxNtjng InlOtmralk-m Sources
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial iN'
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle tdps, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety dsks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g.. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks?
R:\CEQA\197PA99 IES,doc
5
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or'
through habitat modifications, on any spedes identified
as a candidate, sensitive. or spedal status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations. or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any ripadan habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlib nursery sites?
Conflict with any local polides or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Imped
,/
Signmficerd UnkrJ, Lees Than
M4:gation $:gnlflcant No
,/
R:\CEQA%197PA99 IE$.doc
6
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Crate a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
For a project within the vidnity of a pdvata airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant dsk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland rites, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
issues end Supporting ;ffm,,n~ion 5ogme=
Exposure of ~ople to severe noise levels in ex~ss ~
standa~s established in ~e Io~1 general plan or noise
ordinan~, or appli~ble standards of other agencies?
~sum of ~mons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
A substantial ~anent in~ease in ambient noise levels
in the proje~ viciniW above levels existing wi~out ~e
projec~
!e~g'_,~t' Incorpo~led_ ...... Impact
R:~CEQA\197PA99 IES.doc
7
A substantial temporary or pedodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airpod or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a pdvate airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
,r
,/
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:
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associates with the provisions of new or
physically altered governmental fadlities, need for new or
physically altarad governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services?
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
IMUei end Su.pgg~....~g Inleemation Sources
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment fadlities or expansion of existing
fadlities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Than
Impaca
ImpaLl
,f
No I
R:\CEQA%197PA99 IES.doc
8
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
,/
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and histodc building
within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
.~L.~..._._'_,___~m..,l~...
Potentsally ~ 5sEnihcant Unless ' L.e~s Than
No
,/
,/
,/
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
m4,...d su;a,e~e .e=.,.~, so.r..
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical detedoretion of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
R:%CEQA\197PA99 IES.doc
9
Slgnlhcant
Impact
,/
1"
a. Does ~e pmje~ have ~e potn~al ~ degrade ~e quali~
of ~e envimnmen~ subs~n~ally r~u~ ~e habitat of a
fish or ~ldlife ~edes, ~use a fi~ or ~ldlffe popula~on
to drop ~low ~-sustaining levels. ~reaten ~ elimina~
a plant or animal ~mmuni~. mdu~ ~e number of
res~ ~e range of amm or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate impo~nt e~mples of ~e major pedods of
California his~ or pmhisto~
b. Does the pmje~ have impa~ ~at am individually
limited, but ~mulatively ~nsiderable? ("Cumula~vely
~nsidemble" means fiat the in~emen~l effe~ of a
proje~ am ~nsidemble ~en vie~d in ~nne~on with
the effe~ of ~st proje~s, ~e effe~s of o~er ~ent
proje~, and ~e effe~s of probable future projects?
c. Does ~e pmje~ have environmen~l effe~ ~i~ will
~use subs~n~al adverse effe~s on human beings,
either dire~ly or indim~ly?
Comments:
The proposed amendment to the Development Code that proposes to amend a number of relatively minor
provisions concerning in-home day care facilities, temporary land uses permits, lot size and required yard
requirements, and senior and affordable housing performance standards. The modification of these provisions
will not impact or noticeably effect any of the previously described environmental resources. The proposed
changes continue to be consistent with the general impacts and discussed in the adopted General Plan and
Final EIR. As a result, no adverse impacts have been identified and no mitigation measures are necessary.
R:~CEQA\I97PA99 IES,doc
10
ITEM #8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
August18,1999
Planning Application No. PA99-0291
(General Plan Amendment and Zone Change)
Prepared By: David Hogan, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
APPROVE a Negative Declaration for Planning Application
PA99-0291; and,
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- recommending approval of
Planning Application No. PA99-0291 based upon the
Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
City of Temecula
PROPOSAL/LOCATION:
To amend the General Plan Land Use and the Zoning Maps
for the City of Temecula for a site identified as Assessors
Parcel Numbers 921-660-026, -027, -041, -042 located south
of Via La Vida between Calle Palmas and Via Sevilla from
Medium Density Residential to Low Medium Density
Residential.
To amend the General Plan Land Use Map for the City of
Temecula for a site identified as Assessors Parcel Number
944-330-019 located between Rancho Highlands Drive and
Interstate 15 from Open Space to Highway Tourist
Commercial.
To amend the General Plan Land Use and the Zoning Maps
for the City of Temecula for the southerly third of a site
identified as Assessors Parcel Number 950-120-004 located
west of Avenida de Missiones from Open Space-
Conservation to Professional Office.
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area:
9.4 +/- acres
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\291PA99 - PC.doc
BACKGROUND
Staff has recently identified a number of needed adjustments that should be made to the General
Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps. These city-initiated changes have been grouped together to
simplify the hearing process before the Planning Commission and City Council. Though bundled
together for processing, each of the three changes may be discussed and considered separately
if the Commission deems it appropriate.
ANALYSIS
These proposals would change the General Plan Land Use map and Zoning Maps in several areas
of the City. A detailed discussion of each change area follows.
Site 1: South side of Via La Vida
General Plan: 6 +/- acres Medium Density Residential to Low Medium Density
Zoning: 6 +/- acres Medium Density Residential to Low Medium Density
This area consists of approximately six acres of vacant property that is surrounded by single family
residences. The homes to the west and north are smaller homes on 4,000 square foot tots. The
homes to the east and south are larger homes on 8,000 to 14,000 square foot lots. The proposal
would change the General Plan and Zoning designations to allow approximately 28 single family
homes to be constructed on 7,200 +/- square foot lots. The proposed change would facilitate
development that would create a transition between the smaller and larger homes.
Site 2: Rancho Highlands Drive
General Plan: 1.4 +/- acres Open Space to Highway Tourist Commercial
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify a mapping discontinuity between the Rancho Highlands
Specific Plan and the General Plan Land Use Map. The Land Use Map in the Rancho Highlands
Specific Plan shows open space over much of this property. This open space actually appears to
represent landscaped slopes that were supposed to form a transition between Planning Area 2
(commercial) and Planning Area 6 (high density residential and commercial). This is supported
by Riverside County's approval of Parcel Map 23624 in 1989. At that time, the entire larger parcel
was subdivided into three commercial sites without any reference to open space. The other two
parcels of this map are developed and are occupied by Marie Calendars Restaurant and the
Embassy Suites Hotel. This proposal would allow the commercial development envisioned in the
specific plan and parcel map to occur. The zoning standards for this site are still contained in the
Rancho Highlands Specific Plan.
Site 3: West side of Avenida de Missiones
General Plan: 2 +/- acres Open Space to Office Professional
Zoning: 2 +/- acres Open Space-Conservation to Professional Office
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify a mapping error west of Avenida de Missiones. During
the adoption of the General Plan, the southern portion of this 7.2 acres site was inadvertently
included in the Temecula Creek channel open space area. Subsequent communications with the
Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicate that this area is not
considered to be part of Temecula Creek's channel because it is located behind the existing creek
\\TEMEC_FS 1 O1 \VOL1 ~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\291 PA99 - PC,doc 2
channel improvements. Consequently, staff is recommending that the General Ran and Zoning
designations on the southern third of this site be changed to Professional Office. Copies of the
above mentioned communications are included in Attachment No. 4.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for this project to determine if the proposed changes
would result in any environmental impacts beyond those impacts identified in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The Initial Study indicated that overall, the
proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes would not result in impacts beyond those
originally anticipated for the City General Plan. These amendments will result in a very slight
increase, less than one thousand, in daily vehicle trips. However, overall the impacts of these
General Plan changes will not have an impact beyond those anticipated in the certified Final
Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan. As a result, these potential increases are not
considered significant and staff recommends that a Negative Declaration be adopted.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Staff has evaluated these proposals and has determined that these amendments to the General
Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps are appropriate and will be compatible with the other land uses
in their respective areas and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
these changes to the City Council.
FINDINGS
General Plan Amendment
1. The amendments are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. The amendments are compatible with existing and surrounding uses.
The amendments will not have an adverse effect on the community and are consistent with
the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
Change of Zone
1. The changes are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. The changes are consistent with the approved revisions to the General Plan Land Use Map.
The changes will not have an adverse effect on the community and are consistent with the
goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
\\TEMEC_FS101',VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING%STAFFRPT%291PA99 - PC.doc
3
Attachments:
PC Resolution No. 99- - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A - Resolution No, 99- - Blue Page 9
Exhibit B - Ordinance No. 99- - Blue Page 13
Initial Study - Blue Page 16
Exhibits - Blue Page 17
A. Location Map
B-1 Site 1 Existing General Ptan Map
C-1 Site 1 Existing Zoning Map
B-2 Site 2 Existing General Plan Map
C-2 Site 2 Existing Zoning Map
B-3 Site 3 Existing General Plan Map
C-3 Site 3 Existing Zoning Map
D-1 Site 1 Proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map
D-2 Site 2 Proposed General Plan Land Use Map
D-3 Site 3 Proposed General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map
Correspondence on Site 3 - Blue Page 28
\\TEMEC FSlOl%VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\291PA99 - PC.doc
4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DEPTS%PLANNING\STAFFRPT\291 PA99 - PC.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. I
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CITY KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-660-026, 921-660-027, 921-660-
041,921-660-042, 944-330-019, AND 950-120-004 (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0291)" 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 CITY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NOS. 921-660-026, 921-660-027, 921-660-041,921-660-042, AND
950-120-004 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0291)"
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula initiated Planning Application No. PA99-0291, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0291 was processed including, but not limited
to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
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 Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0291 on
August 18, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff
and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0291;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findings.
A. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of these General Plan
Amendments, make the following findings:
community.
The amendments are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
2. The amendments are compatible with existing and surrounding uses.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\291PA99 - PC.doc
6
3. The amendments will not have an adverse effect on the community and are
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
B. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of these Changes of Zone,
make the following findings:
The changes are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
Land Use Map.
The changes am consistent with the approved revisions to the General Plan
3. The changes will not have an adverse effect on the community and are
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for
this project to determine if the proposed changes would result in any environmental impacts beyond
those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City G.eneral Plan. The
Initial Study indicated that overall, the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
would have not result in impacts beyond those originally anticipated for the City General Plan. The
exceptions are that three areas; circulation, air quality, and biologic resource impacts are expected
to see small reductions in the anticipated environmental impacts. As a result, the Planning
Commission determines that the potential impacts of these changes were adequately addressed
by the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan and that no further
environmental analysis is required.
Section 4. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
Planning Application No. PA99-0291 (General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone) and
recommends that the City Council do the following:
A. Approve a Resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FOR VARIOUS
AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-660-026. 921-
660-027,921-660-041,921-660-042, 944-330-019, AND 950-120-004 (PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA99-0291 )" substantially in the form that is attached to this resolution as-Exhibit A; and,
B. Adopt an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CITY
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-660-026,921 ~660-027,921-660-041,921-660-042,
AND 950-120-004 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0291 )" substantially in the form that is
attached to this resolution as Exhibit B.
\\TEMEC_FS 101%VOL 1 \DEPTS\PLANN ING\STAFFRPT\291PA99 - PC,doc
7
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of August 1999.
Ron Guerriero, 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 18th day of August,
1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%291PA99 - PC.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 99-__
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\291 PA99 - PC.doc
9
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
FOR VARIOUS AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-660-026, 921-660-027, 921-660-
041,921-660-042, 944-330-019, AND 950-120-004 (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0291)
WHEREAS, The City of Temecula initiated Planning Application No. PA99-0291, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0291 was processed including, but not limited
to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
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 Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0291 on
August 18, 1999, 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 suppor~ or.opposition to this
matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0291;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning Application
No. PA99-0291 on ,1999, at which time interested persons had opportunity to, and
did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application No. PA99-0291;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding Planning Application No. PA99-0291;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findings The City Council, in approving Planning Application No. PA99-0291
(General Plan Amendment) hereby makes the following findings:
community.
A. These amendments are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
B. These amendments are compatible with existing and surrounding uses.
C. These amendments wile not have an adverse effect on the community and
are consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted Genera1 Plan.
\\TEMEC_FSlOl\VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\291PA99 - PC.doc
Section 3. Amendments To The General Plan Land Use Map The City Council hereby
amends the General Plan Land Use Map on the following parcels in the manner specified below:
A. For the parcels identified as APN 921-660-026, -027, -041, and-042; change
the Land Use Designation from Medium Density Residential to Low Medium Residential;
B. For the parcel identified as APN 944-330-019: change the Land Use
Designation from Open Space (OS) to Highway Tourist Commercial (HT); and '
C. For the southern third of the parcel identified as APN 950-120-004; change
the Land Use Designation from Open Space to Office Professional.
Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for
this project to determine if the proposed changes would result in any environmental impacts beyond
those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The
Initial Study indicated that overall, the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
would have not result in impacts beyond those originally anticipated for the City General Plan. The
exceptions are that three areas; circulation, air quality, and biologic resource impacts are expected
to see small reductions in the anticipated environmental impacts. As a result, the City Council
determines that the potential impacts of these changes were adequately addressed by the Final
Environmental impact Report for the City General Plan and that no further environmental analysis
is required.
Section 5. 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 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\291 PA99 - PC.doc
Section 7, PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this ~ day of ,1999,
Steven J. Ford, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. 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:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
\\TEMEC_FSlOl\VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT\291pA99 - PC.doc
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 99-
\/TEMEC FS 101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\291PA99 - PC .doe
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 CITY KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 921-
660-026, 921-660-027, 921-660-041,921-660-042, AND 950-120-
004 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0291)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City
Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the
State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The following changes to the land
use district shown on the Official Land Use map for the City of Temecula are hereby adopted.
A. The zoning designation for the parcels identified as Assessors Parcel Nos. 921-660-
026,921-660-027,921-660-041, and 921-660-042 are changed the Medium Density Residential
(M) to Low Medium Residential (LM); and
B. The zoning designation for the parcel identified as Assessors Parcel No. 950-120-
004 is changed from Open Space-Conservation (OS-C) to Professional Office (PO).
Section 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of
the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at
least three public places in the City.
Section 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its
adoption.
Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Study was prepared for
this project to determine if the proposed changes would result in any environmental impacts beyond
those impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan. The
Initial Study indicated that overall, the proposed General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
would have not result in impacts beyond those originally anticipated for the City General Plan. The
exceptions are that three areas; circulation, air quality, and biologic resource impacts are expected
to see small reductions in the anticipated environmental impacts. As a result, the City Council
determines that the potential impacts of these changes were adequately addressed by the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the City General Plan and that no further environmental analysis
is required.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days ~fier 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 cedified 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_FS101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%291 PA99 - PC,doc
Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this day of ,1999.
ATTEST:
Steven J. Ford, 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 certify 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 , 1999, 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 ,1999 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\291PA99 - PC.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL STUDY
\\TEMEC FSlO1\VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%291PA99 - PC,doc
RE VISED
Project Title
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Locations
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Designation (Current)
Zoning (Current)
Proposed General Plan Designations)
Proposed Zoning District
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Planning Application No. PA99-0291 (General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change)
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
David Hogan, Senior Planner
(909) 694-6400
Site 1 - A site located on the south side of Via La Vida
(APN's 921-660-026, -027, -041 and -042).
Site 2 - A small area located between Interstate 15 and
Rancho Highlands Drive (APN 944-330-019).
Site 3 - A portion of the site located on the west side of
Avenida de Missiones (APN 950-120-004)
City of Temecula
Site 1 - Medium Density Residential
Site 2 - Open Space (landscaped slope)
Site 3 - Office Professional and Open Space
Site 1 - Medium Density Residential (M)
Site 2 - Specific Plan 2 - Planning Area 2
Site 3 - Professional Office and Open Space-Conservation
Site 1 - Low Medium Density Residential
Site 2 - Highway Tourist Commercial
Site 3 - Office Professional
Site 1 - Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
Site 2 - No changes proposed
Site 3 - Professional Office (PO)
Site 1 -- The site is surrounded by Medium and Low
Medium density single family residences.
Site 2 - The site is located adjacent to developed
commercial and undeveloped high density
residential/commercial property and Interstate 15.
Site 3 - The site and the property to the west is vacant.
The property to the east contains single family
residences.
Other public agencies whose approval None.
is required
This Initial Environmental Study is being completed to compare the differences between the current
General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations evaluated using the Final EIR for the City General
Plan with the proposed changes to the Land Use and Zoning Maps. For the purpose of this analysis,
equivalent impacts and reductions in overall impacts are being treated as "No Impact" in the attached
checklist.
The revisions to the earlier version of this Initial Environmental Study are shown in Italics.
R:\CEQA\291 PA99 - EIS.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
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
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 EtR 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: July 19, 1999
David Hogan For: The City of Temecula
R:\CEQA\291 PA99 - EIS .doc
2
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Impact imDacl
ISSues and Supporting Information Sources
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
impact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
1.8.
1.c.
1.d. "/
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?
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)?
I I.e.
Comments
1 .a,c The project is three general plan amendments and two required zone changes that can be
characterized as (1) a reduction in a residential land use designation, (2) clarify a mapping
discontinuity between the general plan and the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, and (3) a
mapping errorin the original GeneraiPlan. The General Plan Land Use Map shows an area
of open space for Change No. 2 that appears to correspond to a previously envisioned
landscaped slope between previously subdivided parcels. Because the Specific Plan did not
really envision an open space area in this location, and a non-open space lot has already
been created, Change No. 2 appears to be a mapping error that is proposed for correction.
The area represented by Change No. 3 was shown as an open space element of the
Temecula Creek channel. Further reseamh as indicated that the property is actually not part
of the channel and should have been designated as Office Professional on the General Plan
Land Use map. The area of this change comprises about 2 acres As a result, the
environmental impacts associated with this project are expected to be similar to the originally
anticipated in the Environmental impact Report for the City General Plan.
1 .b The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The impacts from the General Plan Land Use
Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report 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. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this
project.
1 .d Both sites are vacant properties surrounded by urban scale development. Neither site has
been used for agricultural activities within the last twenty years. As a consequence, any
environmental impacts associated with this project are expected to be equivalent to those
impacts identified in the original General Plan.
R:\CEQA\291PA99 - EIS.doc
3
1.e
Potenual~y
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless S~gnificant NO
Issues and Supporting Information Sources impact Mitigation ~rnpac[ Irnpac:
Incorporated
The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community
(including low-income or minority community. As a consequence no significant effects are
anticipated as a result of this project.
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)
,7
,7
Comments
The project will not result in development that would cumulatively exceed official regional or
local population projections, will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or
indirectly, and will not displace any type of housing. The project sites are either already
developed or are proposed to remain substantially undeveloped. As a result, no significant
effects are anticipated from 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.
Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6 )
Seismic ground shaking?
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(Source 1, Figure 7-2, Page 7-8)
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
Landslides or mudflows? (Source 1, Figure 7-2,
Page 7-8)
Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions form excavation, grading or fill?
Subsidence of the land? (Source 1, Figure 7-2,
Page 7-8)
Expansive soils?
Unique geologic or physical features?
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
,/
Comments
This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for
the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
4.a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and mount of surface runoff?
4.b. Exposure of people or property to water related
R:\CEQA\291PA99 - EIS.doc
4
4.c,
4.d.
4.e.
4.f.
4.g.
4.h.
4.i,
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
hazards such as flooding? (Source 1, Figure 7-3,
Page 7-10; Figure 7-4, Page 7-)
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?
Poten[iatl¥
Significant
Impact
Los5 Than
S~gnifican~
Impact
No
Comments
This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for
the City General Plan. However, there is the potential that the operation of the detention area
will result in an incremental increase in local groundwater recharge. As a result, no additional
impacts have been identified.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
5.a.
5.b.
5.c.
5.d.
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (Source
1, Page 2-29)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or
cause any change in climate?
Create objectionable odors?
Comments
The proposed General Ran and Zoning amendments does not represent a noticeable change
in vehicle trips, the major source of air pollution in the southwest portion of Riverside County.
The amendment would in approximately the same number of vehicle trips as was originally
envisioned in the EIR for the General Plan. As a result, this project represents an insignificant
change in the impacts addressed in the original EIR for the City General Plan,
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
6,a,
Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible
R:\CEQA\291PA99 - EtS.doc
5
6.c,
6.d.
6.e.
6.f.
6.g,
Issues and Supporting Informatlon Sources
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
Significant
Impact
Less Than
S~9n~hcant
ImpacI
Comments:
The proposed General Plan and Zoning amendments does not represent a noticeable change
in vehicle trips, the major source of air pollution in the southwest portion of Riverside County.
The amendment for Site 1 could result in a reduction of approximately 230 vehicle trips per
day. The amendment for Site 2 could result in an increase of up to approximately 500 vehicle
trips per day. The amendment for Site 3 could result in an increase of up to approximately
475 vehicle trips per day. As a result, this project represents an insignificant change in the
impacts addressed in the original EIR for the City General Plan given the number of trip
generation decreases that have also occurred in recent years.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
7.a.
7.b.
7.c.
7.d.
7.e.
Endangered, threatened or rare 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?
Comments:
This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for
the City General Plan. As a result, the project is expected to result in no change in the impact
to biologic impacts.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
8.a.
8.c.
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?
R:\CEQA\291PA99 - EIS.doc
6
Issues end Supporting Information Sources
Polent~aHy
Sigmhcant
Unless
Mmgation
Incorporated
Comments:
8.all. This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for
the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
9.a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticjdes, chemical or radiation)?
9.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?
9.e. Increase fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush,
grass, or trees?
Comments:
9.all. This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for
the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
10.a.
10.b.
Increase in existing noise levels? (Source 1, page
8-9)
Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Comments:
10.all. This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for
the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified.
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:
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:
R:\CEQA\291 PA99 - EIS.doc
7
11.a11.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Slgnihcant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Impact Mmgat~on ImpacI ! ~rnDact
Incorporated J
The project will not have an effect upon, or result in need for new or altered governmental
services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS: Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
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?
Comments;
12.a. The project will not result in a need for new utility systems or substantial alterations to existing
facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
13,a.
13,b.
13,c.
Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic affect?
Create light or glare?
Comments:
13.all. This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for
the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified
14, CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
14.a. Disturb paleontological resources? (Source 2, ,/
Figure 55 )
14.b. Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 1, Page ,/
281)
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?
Comments:
14.a11. This project does not represent a change from the impacts addressed in the original EIR for
the City General Plan. As a result, no additional impacts have been identified.
R:\CEQA\291 PA99 - EIS,dOC
8
Potentially Less Than
Significant Significant
Impact Jmpacl
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Poten~,aHy
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
15.a.
15.b.
Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
Affect existing recreational oppodunities?
Comments:
15.all.
The project will not impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities or affect the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or
opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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: None
EARLIER ANALYSES. The Final Environmental impact Report for the City of Temecula General
Ran, Certified in 1993.
SOURCES
1. City of Temecula General Plan.
2. City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental impact Report.
R:\CEQA\291PA99 - EIS.doc
9
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT\291PA99 - PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
3
CASE NUMBER: PA99-0291
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -AUGUST 18, 1999
LOCATION MAP
P
GENERAL PLAN AMENDIV
(PA99-0291)
CITY OF TEMECULA
OS
EXHIBIT B-1 - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
DESIGNATION - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M)
CASE NUMBER: PA99-0291
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -AUGUST 18, 1999
SITE I
CITY OF TEMECULA
LM
- ZONING MAP
N - MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M)
-'R: PA99-0291 SITE 1
OMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 18, 1999
CC
CITY OF TEMECULA
CC
Ht
O
OS
EXHIBIT B-2 - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - OPEN SPACE (OS)
CASE NUMBER: PA99~)291
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -AUGUST 18, 1999
SITE 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT C-2 - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-2)
CASE NUMBER: PA99-0291 SITE 2
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -AUGUST 18, 1999
CITY OF TEMECULA
U
OS
EXHIBIT B-3 - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - OPEN SPACE (OS)
CASE NUMBER: PA99-0291 SITE 3
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- AUGUST 18, 1999
CITY OF TEMECULA
"'OS;C" *--.
· I.:M
-lIBIT C..3 - ZONING MAP
.SIGNATION - OPEN SPACE-CONSERVATION (OS.-C})
~SE NUMBER: PA99-,0291
LANNING COMMISSION DATE -AUGUST 18, 1999
SITE 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
GP:
:ZONING:
Low Medium Residential-
Low Medium Residential~
CASE NUMBER: PA99-0291
EXHIBIT D~I
SITE 1 ~ PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 18. 1999
CiTY OF TEMECULA
/ GP: Highway Tourist Commercial
-ZONING: Highway Tourist Commercial
CASE NUMBER: PA99-0291
EXHIBIT D-2
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -AUGUST 18, 1999
SITE 2 - PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
~ GP:
/
\ZONING:
Professional
Professional Office
CASE NUMBER: PA99-0291
EXHIBIT D-3 SITE 3 - PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -AUGUST 18, 1999
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CORRESPONDENCE ON SITE 3
,,,
a OM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
2150 N. ARROWHEAD AVENUE
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
TEL (909) 882-3612 · FAX (909) 882-7015
E-MAIL tda~empirenet.com
March 31, 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
ATTN: Spencer McNeil
911 Wilshire Boulevard, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
By
Subject:
Follow-up to site visit on small parcel (Ray Schooley property) on
the corner of State Highway 79 and Avenida De Missions in
Temecula, Riverside County, California
Dear Spencer:
This letter is a follow-up to your site visit to the subject property with Ms. Lisa
Kegarice on March 16, 1999 on the parcel adjacent to the Presley
Development, located across Avenida De Hissions in Temecula (Ray Schooley
property, see the attached map and aerial photo). Lisa is overwhelmed by
Quino surveys at this moment, so she asked me to transmit this letter to you
in response to your request for additional information. As you may recall, this
site has been isolated from the active channel of Temecula Creek by a large
channel wall or levee (see aerial) installed by Presley during the construction
of their residential tract across (to the east) of the subject site. In the field
Lisa indicated that the isolation of this parcel from Temecula Creek's flows has
rendered this parcel no longer subject to 404 jurisdiction.
Subsequent to your and Lisa's visit to the site, you confirmed that the berm
had been permitted by the Corps and the subject parcel was legally isolated
by the channel wall. However, you then questioned whether or not the
southern portion of the parcel had been included in a County open space or
mitigation easement for the Presley project. We have obtained the City m~ps
and have determined that the parcel was not encumbered in any manner by
the Conservation Easement. The attached map and aerial photo illustrates the
various features (roads, channel wall, conservation easement area and Mr.
Schooley's property) which verify that the conservation easement extends to
the westerly boundary of Mr. Schooley's property and does not encompass any
of his property.
Based on the attached information and your discussions with Lisa on this
matter, we are requesting your concurrence that this parcel is not subject to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and that no further procedural interaction
with the Corps under Section 404 is required for future development of this
site. Should you be to busy to respond to this transmittal, we will proceed
under the assumption that, if we do not hear from you by April 15, 1999
regarding this matter, you do concur with these conclusions.
:[ want to thank you for your timely help in this matter. :If you have any
questions regarding the contents of this letter or would like any additional
information, please do not hesitate to give Lisa or 1~ a call at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Tom Dodson
Attachment
cc: Ray Schooley
Randy Fleming
LarD/Markham
Patricia K. Anders
2
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O BOX 532711
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053-2325
April 7, 1999
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
Ray Schooley
c/o Tom Dodson & Associates
Attn: Lisa Kegarice
2150 NorL~ Arrov~'hcad A~,'anue
San Berr~ardino, California 92405-4002
Dear Ms. Kegarice:
Reference is made to your letter (No. 199915516-SDM) dated April 2, 1999 requesting a
Department of the Army jurisdictional determination for the Ray Schooley property, located
between the north side of the Presley Homes Levee (frontlug Temecula Creek) and the south
side of Highway 79, adjacent to Avertida de Missiones, in the City of Temecula, Riverside
Cotlnry. California.
Based on the information b.~mished in your letter and gathered during our March 16,
1999 field visit, we have determined that your proposed project does not discharge dredged
or fill material into a water of the United States or an adiacent wetland. Therefore, a project
occurring on the Ray Schooley parcel, as long as it does not extend southwest past the
existing Presley Homes Levee into the Conservation Easement area (see attached drawing), is
not subject to our jurisdiction render Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a Section 404
permit is not required from our office.' Any discharge of dredged or filI material into the
Conservation Easement area (i.e., immediately adjacent to the west end of the Presley Homes
Levee) would require prior Seceion 404 authorization.
The receipt of your letter is appreciated. ]i you have any questions, please contact
Spencer D. MacNell of my staff at (213) 452-3418.
Sincerely,
~,~.ark Durham
6Chief, South Coast Section
Regulatory Branch
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the
office of the Community Development Department at (909) 694-6400. Notification 48 ho urs prior to a meeting will enable the City to make
reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to ~at meeting ['28 CFR 35.t02.35.104 ADA Title II]
August 18, 1999, 6:00 PM
43200 Business Park Drive
Council Chambers
Temecula, CA 92590
Resolution Next In Order #99-028
CALL TO ORDER:
FLAG SALUTE:
ROLL CALL:
Chairperson Guerriem
Fahey, Guerriero, Mathewson, Naggar, and Webster
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the commissioners on items that are not listed on
the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners about an item
not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For aJI other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be flied with the Planning Secretary before Commission gets
to that item. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2.
3.
4.
Approval of Agenda
ACTION: APPROVED 5-0
Minutes from July 21, 1999
ACTION: APPROVED 5-0
Director's Hearing Update
ACTION: RECEIVE AND FILE
Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity for High Society Bilfiard and Dart Club
ACTION: 1-3-1, WEBSTER APPROVED, FAHEY/GUERRIERO/MATHEWSON OPPOSED,
NAGGAR ABSTAINED
****CONTINUED OFF CALENDAR****
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5. Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning Application No. PA99-0301 (Revisions to previously approved PA98-
0386 Development Plan)
John Firestone
On the southeast corner of Rancho Califomia Road and Ridge Park Drive.
The design, construction and operation of a 50,100 square foot speculative office
building with associated parking and landscaping located on a parcel containing 4.01
gross acres.
Determination of consistency with previously certified Mitigated
Negative Declaration
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
Approval
APPROVED 5-0
R:\wimbervg\plancomm~agendas\1999\8-18-99.doc
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Plannen
Case Engineer:.
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Planning ApplicaUon No. PA98-05t6 (TentaUve Parcel Map No.
29132)
Raymond Schooley
Southwest corner of State Highway 79 and Avenida De Missions
To subdivide 6.68 acres of land into five (5) lots zoned Office Professional.
Mitigated Negative Dedaration
Patty Andors, Assistant Planner
Annie Bostre-Le
Approval
APPROVED 5-0
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner,
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Amendments to the Development Code (Planning Application PA97-0197)
City of Temecula
Citywide
To amend the Development Code to do the following:
1. Establish standards for Large Family Day Care Home Facilities;
2. Establish permitting requirements for the approval of Large Family Day Care
Home Facilities;
3. Re-categorizing temporary uses;
4. Amend accessory structure setback requirements;
5. Modify the senior housing, congregate care, and affordable housing
provisions;
6. Clarity parts of the floor area ratio incentive bonus; and,
7. Make numerous other minor changes to the Development Code.
Recommend Adoption of a Negative Declaration
Dave Hogan
Approve a Resolution Recommending Adoption of an Ordinance
APPROVED SUB-ITEMS 3-7 (5-0)
CONTINUED OFF CALENDAR SUB-ITEMS 1 AND 2 (5-0)
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposals:
Environmental Action:
City-iniUated General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes (Planning
Application PA97-029'1)
City of Temecula
Site I - South side of Via La Vida between Calle Palmas and Via Sevilla.
Site 2 - South of the Embassy Suites Hotel between Interstate 15
and Rancho Highlands Drive.
Site 3 - West side of Avenida de Missiones north of Temecula Creek.
Site 1 - Amend the General Plan Land Use and the Zoning Maps for
the City of Temecula for an site identified as Assessors Parcel
Numbere 921-660-026,-027, -041, -042 and located South of Via La
Vida between Calle Palmas and Via Sevilla from Medium Density
Residential to Low Medium Density Residential.
Site 2 -To amend the General Plan Land Use Map for the City of
Temecula for a site identified as Assessors Parcol Number 944-330-
019 and located between Rancho Highlands Drive and interstate 15
from Open Space to Highway Tourist Commercial
Site 3 -To amend the General Plan Land Use and the Zoning Maps
for the City of Temecula for the southerly portion of a site identified as
Assessors Parcel Number 950-120-004 and located west of Avenida
de Missiones from Open Space-Conservation to Professional Office.
Recommend Adoption of a Negative Declaration
R:\wimbervg\plancomm~agendas\1999\8-18-99.doc
2
Planner.
Recommendation:
ACTION:
Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
Approve a Resolution Recommending Adoption of an Ordinance
APPROVED SITE 1 AND 3 (5-0)
CONTINUED OFF CALENDAR SITE 2 (5-0)
PLANNING MANAGERS REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeUng:
September 1, 1999, 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve,
Temecula, California, 92590
R:\wimbcrvg\plancomm\agendas\1999\8-18-99.do~
3