HomeMy WebLinkAbout031500 PC AgendaCALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Roll Call:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please cantact the office Of the City Clerk (909) 694-e;~.;. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to erasure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR
35,102.35.104 ADA Tfde II]
.AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
MARCH 16, 2000-6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2000-011
Commissioner Mathewson
Fahey, Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, Guerriero
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item not 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 for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary pdor to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICETO THEPUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Membere of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
Aooroval of Aclenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 15, 2000.
R:~plancomm~agendas%2.000~3-15-00. doc
1
2
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Minutes from January 19, 2000
3 Director's HeadnQ Update
RECOMMENDATION
3.1 Receive and File
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
4
PlanninQ ApPlication NO. PA99-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627~ Maroarita Canyon,
located adiacant to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town Front Street
and Highway 79 South/future Western ByPass - John DeGanoe
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
4.2
4.3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28627), A
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 37 ACRE PARCEL INTO 11
COMMERCIAL LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT LOCATED
ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 15, SOUTHWEST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND
HIGHWAY 79 (S) I FUTURE WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR
(ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 922-210-047);
Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627);
Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0307
Tentative Parcel Map 28627.
R:%plancomm%agendas~2000%3-15-O0.doc
2
5
Plannino Aoolication No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 291331. located on the east
side of Ynez Road, 707 feet south of Calla Halcon and Ynez Rood - Thomas Thomsley
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA98-0389 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29133)
LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF YNF..Z ROAD, 707 FEET
SOUTH OF CALLE HALCON AND YNF_.Z ROAD AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-060-024;
5.2 Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-O389
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29133);
5.3 Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0389
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29133).
6
Plannina Application No. PA00-0041 (An Amendment to the Adult Business Ordinance},
Citywide - Dave Hoaan
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING
PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 5.09 OF THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING ADULT BUSINESSES
LOCATED CITYINIDE (PLANNING APPLICATION PA00-0041 )"
7
Plannina Application No. PA99-0363 (Development Plan1, located at 42655 Rio Nedo -
Denice Thomas
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-....
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO, PA99-0363~ A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN
AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 17,654 SQUARE FOOT
SPECULATIVE BUILDING ON 1.02 VACANT ACRES LOCATED
AT 42655 RIO NEDO AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 909-290-046;
R:~plancomm%agendas%2,000~3-15-OO.doc
3
7.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0363 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Plannino Al~plication No. PA99-0496 (Develooment Plan't, located at 40440 Maraadta
Road - Denice Thomas
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA99-0496, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A 12,758 SQUARE
FOOT BANK BUILDING ON 1.23 VACANT ACRES LOCATED
AT 40440 MARGARITA ROAD WITHIN PLANNING AREA 4 OF
THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-330-001.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Planners Institute
Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: April 5, 2000
R:~plarmomm~agendas%2000~3-15-O0,doc
4
ITEM #2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 19, 2000
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:04 P.M.,
on Wednesday January 19, 2000. 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 Mathewson.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Commissioners *Fahey, Mathewson, Webster, and
Chairman Guerriero.
None.
Planning Manager Ubnoske,
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Attorney Cudey,
Senior Planner Fagan,
Associate Planner Thomas,
Project Planner Griffin,
Project Planner Thomsley, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
*(Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:14 P.M.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Councilman Naggar relayed that he had been appointed as the Council Liaison for the
Planning Commission; noted the importance of the role of the Commission within the
City; and encouraged the Commissioners to continue their excellent work.
CONSENT CALENDAR
I Al~l~roval of AQenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of January 19, 2000.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to approve the Agenda. (This motion
ultimately died for lack of a second.)
Planning Manager Ubnoske recommended that the Agenda be revised, specifically, that
the Commission consider Agenda Item No. 7 after Agenda Item No, 4 sinca the matter
was recommended to be continued and had been placed last in order on the Agenda,
noting that due to Commissioner Fahey's delayed attendance in conjunction with
Chairman Guerdero's advisement that he would be abstaining from Agenda Item No. 7,
the matter could not be heard until Commissioner Fahey arrived.
For Chairman Guerdero, Attomey Cudey recommended initially moving forward with the
regular order of the Agenda; and relayed that after the Commission had considered
Agenda Item No. 4, if Commissioner Fahey had arrived the Agenda could be amended
at that point in time, and the Commission could hear Agenda item No. 7.
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of December 8, 1999.
Directors Headncl Update
RECOMMENDATION
3.1 Receive and file.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3.
Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with
the exception of Commissioner Fahey who was absent.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
4
Plannincl Application No. PA99-0345 (Development Plan) - VCL Construction
(located on the east side of Jefferson Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet north of
Rancho California Road - Project Planner Steve Gdffin)
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-003
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0345, A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF. A 35,224 SQUARE-FOOT, 101-ROOM
OR 59,950 SQUARE-FOOT, 137-ROOM HOLIDAY INN
HOTEL ON 3.37 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF JEFFERSON AVENUE, APPROXIMATELY 1,000
FEET NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, AND
ALSO IDENTIFIED AS PORTIONS OF PARCEL 1, 2, 3 &
6 OF PARCEL MAP 23882
4.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0345
(Development Plan) pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.
It was noted that Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:14 P.M.
Relaying the rationale for the issue being continued from the December 15, 1999
Planning Commission meeting, specifically, due to the applicant's revised plan to
construct the project in two phases, Project Planner Gdffin provided a detailed overview
of the revisions to the project plan (of record), relaying the following:
Noted the memorandum (per supplemental agenda material) regarding corrections
to the first phase project statistics.
By way of overheads, presented the first phase project plan, noting that the sole
variations were on the east and west elevations.
With respect to the previous Commission comments regarding the discrepancy
between the plant quantities depicted on the legend and the quantities reflected on
the plan, advised that the inconsistencies had been corrected.
Regarding the concom with respect to the density of landscaping adjacent to the
freeway, relayed that the applicant's landscape architect was present and available
for questions of the Commission; and noted that the landscape plan had been
reviewed by the City Landscape Architect, who had reported that the plan was lush,
advising that if the Commission had continued concern, vadous tree sizes could be
increased to a 24-inch box size.
W~th respect to the expressed concam regarding the potential for graffiti on the
retaining well along the freeway edge, advised that the applicant was in the process
of attempting to obtain an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans in order to delete the
plan to have a retaining wall; and noted that if that plan was not successful, the
project would be conditioned to provide a planting stdp and planting pockets in that
area for the purpose of covedng the wall with vines.
Regarding the previous concom with respect to the recommendation for enhancad
articulation, noted the following design elements:
3
Specified the recessed window treatments currently proposed with a four°and-
a-haft inch offset, relaying that if the Commission concurred with staffs
recommendation that the vertical offsets should be no less than six inches (as
previously proposed), the Commission could add an additional Condition of
Approval specifying a required offset.
The addition of a used thin bdck at the base of the building, along the column
elements.
Presented a sample piece of the red metal material. and the red roof tile
matedal proposed to be utilized for the roof elements, noting that in his opinion
the metal matedal (proposed at the entrance canopy) lacked a qualify
appearance in comparison to the red tile; and advised that the applicant would
address the material with the Commission.
W'rth respect to the previous recommendation to condition the project regarding the
completion of the nodhedy access improvements to its full width, advised that those
specific improvements were the responsibility of Rosa's Caf6 (the adjacent use).
Specified the applicant's proposal to allow the hotel's meeting room space to be
available to charitable and non-profit service groups at 30% of cost, for a maximum
of four days a month.
Wffh respect to the request regarding the applicant refining a sign plan, noted that
the applicant was reluctant to develop a sign plan at this time due to the
uncertainties related to the future adjacent tenants, advising that the applicant had
provided assurance that the sign plan would comply with the City Code.
Presented the pencil sketched rendering of the revised project plan.
Mr. Larry Levoff, developer representing the applicant, apprised the Commission, as
follows:
Specified the rationale for the proposed plan to phase the project, noting that Phase
II would most likely be constructed within two years.
Provided additional information regarding the landscaping along the freeway, noting
that vadous existing trees were in excess of 50 feet tall.
W'~ respect to the pop-out elements on the window treatments, relayed a desire to
have the flexibility to determine the depth of the recess when the final plans were
drawn up, agreeing to work with staff with respect to this issue.
Noted that the applicant had not developed a sign plan at this time, reiterating that
the future adjacent tenants were unknown.
Advised that he had discussed the access road improvement project with the owner
of the Rosa's Car6 use, noting that the applicant would not be adverse to this project
being conditioned with respect to the completion of the improvements, noting that
the applicant would work with the owner regarding the matter.
Noted the revenue and employment opportunities that the proposed hotel project
would bdng to the City of Temecula.
For Commissioner Webster, specified that the applicant would be agreeable to
conditioning the project requiring that the improvements at the northerly driveway
approach be completed Prior to Occupancy.
In response to Mr. Levoff's request to modify the language of Condition No.
49c.(regarding Development Impact Fee credits) specifically, to replace the word can
with the word will, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that it was staffs
recommendation not to alter the language of the condition, noting the City Councils'
purview regarding the issue.
Mr. Dan Hansin, architect representing the applicant, provided the following information:
For Commissioner Webster, specified the design revisions with respect to the
proposed project, as follows:
The addition of the wainscot along the bottom tower element.
The increased landscaped area.
The addition of bdck veneer placed on the column elements, the protruding
elements, and at the front entrance area; relayed the rationale for not adding
additional veneer elements to the entire first floor level.
Specified the base, middle, and top elements of the design.
For Commissioner Mathewson, provided additional information regarding the red-
barreled roof design, advising that if the red metal matedal was replaced with tile,
that the canopy design would have to be reconfigured.
In response to Commissioner Webster's querying whether the Fem Pine Trees denoted
on the landscape plan could be replaced with Camphor Trees along the freeway area,
Mr. Vince Didonato. landscape architect for the applicant. provided additional information
regarding the landscape plan, noting the design plan to provide an accent effect with the
denoted trees; and with respect to Commissioner Webster's comments regarding the
potential to lose landscaping (specifically the Eucalyptus Trees) if future improvements
were completed in that area, specified the density of the landscaping.
The Commission relayed concludin~l remarks, as follows:
While stating that he could support the overall project, Commissioner Mathewson
relayed his reluctance to qualify the project for the request for a FAR increase,
specifically noting that the applicant's letter addressing the applicant's willingness to
allow non-profit groups to utilize the meeting room at a discounted pdca, also stated that
this agreement was the norm in the hotel industry, and therefore was not proposing
provision of public facilities beyond the norm, which was the criteda for a FAR increase.
Commissioner Webster clarified that his concam with respect to the landscape plan
was regarding the potential in the future for the loss of the Eucalyptus Trees, noting that
he would not oppose the proposed landscape plan; with respect to the window
treatment's recessed depth, recommended that the project be conditioned to provide a
six-inch offset, while providing staff the flexibility to reduce that to four-and-a-half inches
if deemed appropriate when the final plans had been finalized; recommended
conditioning the project with respect to completion of the improvements to the northerly
ddveway Prior to Occupancy; with respect to the architectural issues, relayed that in his
opinion, there should be additional veneer material added to the entire lower level,
noting that if the Commission did not support that concept, then his recommendation
would be that the applicant utilize a darker color on the wainscot and a darker veneer
color application; and with respect to the metal roof material, noted the concern with the
view from the freeway offramp, relaying that he had no preference between maintaining
the metal material or replacing it with tile.
Concurring with Commissioner Webster's comments regarding the northerly driveway
improvements, the architectural issues, and the specified offset of the window elements,
Chairman Guen'iero expressed his concern regarding the view of the metal roofing
matedal form the freeway offramp, noting the City's diligent efforts to provide an
aesthetically pleasing appearance, specifically for first-time visitors to the City; and
recommended that staff work with the applicant in order to assure a positive visual
appearance.
In response to Commission comment, Mr. Levoff provided additional information
regarding the efis element (a high quality stucco-type material) which would provide a
textured appearance, relaying the applicant's desire to not add additional brick veneer;
with respect to the criteria for the request for a FAR increase, clarified the benef~s that
the project would provide to the City of Temecula, noting the need for this type of facility;
with respect to the reference to the agreement of the applicant to provide meeting rooms
at reduced rates for not-profit organizations, advised that the language should be
corrected. noting that this provision was not the norm in the hotel industry; and with
respect to the metal material at the entry area. provided additional information regarding
the application.
For clarification, with respect to the comment referenced by Commissioner Mathewson
stating that the provision for reduced rates for meeting rooms (for non-profit
organizations) was typical for the hotel industry, Project Planner Griffin specified that this
was his comment, and not the applicant's, relaying that he could be corrected.
Chairman Guerdero commented on the need for a hotel facility in the City of Temecula,
specifically. during special events.
MOTION: Commissioner Webster moved to close the public hearing; and to approve the
project, as described, with the following added conditions:
Add-
A condition stating that the applicant provide a six-inch offset (with respect to
the window elements), allowing staff the discretion to revise the depth of the
offset in the future.
A condition requiring completion of the northerly driveway improvements,
Prior to Occupancy.
6
· That the color application of the wainscot and the veneer treatment be
revised to a darker color.
Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval,
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to revise the order to the Agenda, and that the
Commission consider Agenda Item No. 7 at this time (pdor to Agenda Item No. 5 being
heard). Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Chairman Guerdero who abstained.
At this time the Commission considered Agenda Item No. 7.
7 Plannin.Q Application No. PA97-0307 R'entative Parcel MaD 28627) - (located
adjacent to Interstate 15, south west of the intersection of Old Town Front Street
and Hi~lhwav 79 south (the future Western Bypass Corridor). Assessors Parcel
#922-210-047-Project Planner John DeGanQe
RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Continue
Chairman Guerdero advised that he would be abstaining with regard to Agenda Item No.
7, and therefore left the dais with Vice Chairman Mathewson presiding.
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the request by staff and the applicant was to
continue this matter to the February 16, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to continue this Agenda Item to the February 16,
2000 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and
voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Guerriero who abstained.
It was noted that at 7:00 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 7:11 P.M.
At this time the Commission continued with the regular order of the Agenda, and
considered Agenda Item No. 5.
5 Planning APPlication No. PA99-0379 (Conditional Use Permit and Development
Plan) - Willing3 (Buck) & Lynne Ramse¥ (located at the south side of Winchester
Road, midway between Ynez Road and MarQarita Road, on Pad E at the
Promenade Mall - APN910-320-028 - Project Planner Thomas Thomsley)
RECOMMENDATION:
5,1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
7
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-004
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0379, A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
5,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON 1.2
ACRES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE A GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE
WITH A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT SERVICE
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WINCHESTER
ROAD BETWEEN MARGARITA ROAD AND YNEZ
ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-
320-028 AND LOT E OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT PA98-
0495 AND PARCEL MERGER PA99-0007
5.2
Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0379
(Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan) based on the
Determination of Consistency with a project for which an Environmental
impact Report (EIR) was previously certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15162 - Subsequent EI R's and Negative Declarations.
By way of overheads, Project Planner Thomsley presented the staff report (of record);
provided a bdef history of the project's process up to this point, noting the applicant's
previous request for a Finding of Public Convenience or Necessity in order to sell alcohol
at the site which was denied by the Planning Commission in December of 1999; relayed
the applicant's subsequent decision to continue to move forward with the project;
highlighted this particular project's location. two points of access, and landsceping plan
inclusive of the proposal to screen the drive-though area, fueling area, and portions of
the parking area; relayed that the architectural style of the building was consistent with
the mall design; noted that the landscape plan encompassed thirty-two percent (32%) of
the site; and relayed that this project was within the Temecula Regional Center Specific
Plan No. 263, that an EIR had been prepared, noting that per CEQA guidelines a Notice
of Exemption had been submitted for adoption by the Commission.
For Commissioner Webster, Project Planner Thomsley relayed that the portion of
landscaping that encompassed the Transpontation Easement Corridor was
approximately twenty percent (20%) of the total landscebe plan; and provided additional
information regarding the landscape buffer proposed along that corridor.
In response to Commissioner Webster's quedes regarding components of the Mall's
Specific Plan's (Temecula Regional Specific Plan) mitigation measures with respect to
the Transportation Management Plan, the Transportation System Plan, and the Park and
Ride facility, Senior Planner Fagan relayed that staff was in the process of further
investigating these issues; and advised that after staff had received additional
information from Caltrans and the Riverside Transit Agency, the Commission would be
updated.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Thomsley provided additional
information regarding the berming and landscaping proposed to screen the glare of
headlights from the drive-through area; clarified that the Police Department's
recommendation was that the landscaping proximate to the building and entry points be
maintained at a low height; specified that the City's Ordinance would allow two signs on
the canopy area, and that the Mall's guidelines permit one sign per building front for
each tenant, specifying the location of the proposed signage; relayed that the applicant
could propose up to six signs on the building, the Ultramar (gas station/convenience
market use) could utilize four of the signs, and the Kentucky Fried Chicken (drive-
through restaurant use) could utilize two signs, based on the ratio of space utilized at the
site; and presented the material board, specifying the color application of the stucco.
In response to Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. VV'dling Ramsey, representing the
applicant, provided additional information regarding the proposed signage which was
consistent with the applicable standards; specified the size of the signs, noting the
location of the building signage which would encompass a total of five signs (noted that
six signs would be permitted); and relayed that in working with staft the applicant had
been restricted from installing larger signage, and colored canopies (consistent with logo
elements). as originally requested; and noted that the applicant's original plan had been
to place the gas islands along the street elevation, relaying that the site had been
raconfigured per staff recommendation.
By way of overheads, Project Planner Thornsley further clarified the location of the
signs.
W~th respect to Commissioner Fahey's concems, Project Planner Thomsley provided
additional information regarding the signs permitted in the windows; and advised that
Code Enforcement diligently and aggressively enforced the temporary sign standards.
For Commissioner Fahey, Planning Manager Ubnoske initially relayed that the
temporary signs could be regulated per Commission direction if the applicant was
agreeable, noting that without the applicant's agreement on such conditions, the
standard guidelines for the Mall and the City Ordinance standards would apply.
For clarification, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that per Attorney Curley's
advisement that since this proposal was for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), specific
conditions could be attached due to the use's relationship with respect to the mall,
correcting her previous comment.
Mr. Ramsey provided assurance that the applicant would comply with the City standards
with respect to window signs.
in response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries regarding conditioning the project
with respect to restricting any sign placement on the north elevation, Mr. Ramsey
relayed that the restriction would present a hardship; provided additional information
regarding the scale of the building in relation to the proposed signage; and confirmed
that ultimately the tree landscaping would screen the signage placed on the north
elevation.
Project Planner Thomsley relayed that per the Sign Guidelines, the monument sign
would solely be permitted to display one tenant, noting that due to the requirement to
post gas pdces, the Ultramar logo and the associated gas pdces would be displayed on
the proposed monument sign.
The Commission presented closina remarks, as follows:
Commissioner Fahey noted that the City's Ordinance was adequate with respect to
temporary sign standards. clarifying that her concam was regarding the non-compliance
of businesses in the City with the set standards; and commended staff and the applicant
for their diligent efforts associated with the reconfiguration of the site.
Commissioner Mathewson relayed his support of the overaft project; noted his odginal
concam with respect to the color application represented on the color renderings which
had been allayed by the provision of the matedal board; and recommended restricting
the sign placement on the north elevation to solely maintain one sign.
With respect to the landscape plan, Commissioner Webster recommended
conditioning the project to ensure that the minimum landscaping requirements were
satisfied with the exclusion of the percentage of landscaping within the Transportation
Easement Corridor.
Chairman Guerriero commended the applicant for a job well done with respect to this
project.
In response to Mr. Ramsey, Commissioner Mathewson clarified that he would propose a
motion inclusive of the restdction regarding solely placing one sign on the north
elevation. in lieu of the currently proposed two signs.
MOTION: Commissioner Mathewson moved to close the public hearing; and to approve
staff recommendation, modified with respect to the fueling canopy being limited to two
signs, and that the north elevation be limited to one building sign. (This motion
ultimately died for lack of a second.)
MOTION: Chairman Guerdero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff
recommendation with the following added landscaping condition modification:
Add-
That the project be conditioned to ensure that the proposal satisfies the
minimum required percentage of landscaping with the exclusion of the
landscaping within the Transportation Easement Corridor,
Commissioner Fahey seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
6
Plannina ApPlication No. PA99-0398 (Development Plan) - (located on the north
side of State Hi.Qhwav 79 south aDPreximatelv 500 feet west of Mamadta Road
and State Hiahway 79 south intersection) -Associate Planner Denice Thomas
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
10
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-005
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0398, A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF.A 21,151 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL
OFFICE PLAZA ON 2.28 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH
APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET WEST OF THE
MARGARITA ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH
INTERSECTIONS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 950-100-019
6.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0398
pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines;
6,3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 200O-006
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0399, TENTATIVE PARCEL
MAP NO. 29510 TO SUBDIVIDE 3.42 VACANT ACRES
INTO TWO (2) PARCELS WITHIN THE HIGHWAY
TOURIST COMMERCIAL ZONE GENERALLY LOCATED
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH
APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET WEST OF MARGARITA
ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH
INTERSECTION, KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 950-100-019
6.4 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0399
pursuant to Section 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Via overheads, Associate Planner Thomas provided an overview of the project (per staff
report), highlighting access, parking, site configuration, architectural enhancements, and
landscaping inclusive of the proposed intedor planters; and for Commissioner Fahey,
clarified that the parking provisions proposed (approximately 114 spaces) exceed the
requirements (approximately 80 spaces), noting that the applicant was not proposing
ancillary uses that would affect the parking requirements (i.e., a laboratory),
In response to Commissioner Webster's comments regarding the lack of provisions for a
turn around radius along the rear of Dartola Road, Deputy Director of Public Works
Parks provided additional information regarding the future improvements on Dartola
Road which would eventually tie into a signalized intersection with Highway 79 South;
and noted that the adjacent property would be conditioned to provided a structure over
the drainage course; and advised that staff was of the opinion that it was not necessary
to condition this particular project with respect to this matter,
11
Mr. Edward Anderson, representing the applicant provided the following data with
respect to this particular project:
· Relayed the need for this type of facility in this particular area.
· Specified the doctors who would be utilizing this use.
Noted the vadous medical offices that would be located at the site, as follows: a
family practice, an urgent care center, a wellhess women's clinic, a physical
therapy clinic, and a dental clinic.
Specified the enhanced design treatments, specifically noting the trelliswork, and
the stamped stone detail.
Noted that this particular proposal was inclusive of improvements on Dartola Road
up to the flood channel in order to provide access provisions to the site.
Relayed the applicant's participation with respect to the parcel split, noting the
remaining one-acre site.
Specified the proposed scheduled construction date as March of 2000, and that the
target goal for the onset of operation was September or October of 2000.
For Commissioner Fahey, Mr. Anderson provided additional information regarding the
parking provisions, noting that Dr. Combs, the applicant, would provide information
regarding the uses proposed at the site; for Commissioner Webster, spec'~'ied that in the
courtyard area, there would be provisions for outside bench seating.
Dr. Walter Combs, the applicant, relayed his enthusiasm with respect to the project;
clarified the minimal laboratory services that would be offered at the site; and provided
the rationale for the additional provisions for parking.
With respect to the Parcel Map, Mr. Larry Markham, representing the applicant noted the
following:
With respect to page I of the Conditions of Approval (denoted on page 26 of the
agenda material, Exhibit A), noted that the expiration date should be corrected to
reflect January 19, 2003 in lieu of the January 19, 2002 date reflected, pursuant to
the Subdivision Ordinance.
With respect to Condition No. 14 (page 29, Exhibit A) recommended that the
language be modified to refer only to Parcel No. 1, noting that it has yet to be
determined where the driveways will be on Parcel No. 2.
With respect to Condition No. 25, (page 29, Exhibit A) relayed that the condition
should be stricken since there were no off-site improvements or acquisitions to be
made.
W'~h respect to Condition No. 28 (page 30, Exhibit A) noted that the reciprocal
easement would be denoted and recorded as part of the record map.
12
For Commissioner Webster, Mr. Markham provided additional information regarding
access to Parcel No. 2, clarifying that the use for that parcel had not yet been
determined; and provided additional information regarding the previous parcel maps for
this particular property.
In response to Mr. Markham's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks
confirmed that staff had reviewed each of the requests for modification with respect to
the conditions, and that staff was in agreement with the proposed revisions; specified
that Condition No. 25 (regarding right-of-way issues) could be stricken; with respect to
the access to Dartola Road, relayed that the site plan approval for Parcel No. 2 would be
conditioned with respect to this matter, if deemed necessary.
The Commission provided the following summary comments:
Commissioner Webster, echoed by Commissioner Mathewson, commended the
architect for his excellent work with respect to a definitive architectural style; relayed
concem with respect to the ddveway access points, not necessarily for this project, but
for future development on Parcel No. 2, noting that he had no recommendations
regarding the matter.
For Mr. Anderson, Commissioner Webster provided clarification with respect to his
concern regarding the potential for negative impacts with the location of the driveway
access point of Parcel No. 2 with respect to the proximity of this particular project's
access point.
With respect to the north elevation, initially, Commissioner Mathewaon recommended
extending the trelliswork in order to provided a cover for the gallery area.
For Commissioner Mathewson, the applicanrs representative provided additional
information regarding the proposed trelliswork, landscaping, and sidewalk; and clarified
that the gallery area was proposed to be covered.
For Chairman Guerdero, Mr. Anderson provided additional information regarding the
architectural enhancements of this particular project.
MOTION: Commissioner Fahey moved to close the public hearing, and to approve staff
recommendation, inclusive of the modifications to the conditions presented by Mr.
Markham (specified on page 12 of the minutes under the bulleted items referencing Mr.
Markham's comments). Commissioner Webster seconded the motion and voice vote
reflected unanimous approval.
7 Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627~ - (located
adjacent to Interstate 15, south west of the intersection of Old Town Front Street and
HiGhway 79 south (the future Western Bypass Corridor). Assessor's Parcel #922-
210-047-Project Planner John DeGancle
RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Continue
This Agenda Item was heard out of order. See page 7.
13
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
For Commissioner Mathewson, Chairman Guerriero relayed that at the Power
Center additional landscaping was being added.
Chairman Guerdero relayed that he had taken the Lennar Development Tour in
Orange County, noting that he had videotaped vadous development sites; and
noted that if it was the Commission's desire, the matedal could be presented at
the February 2, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.
Chairman Guerdero relayed his concam with regard to the visual blight created
from the newspaper and magazine reck displayed in vadous locations in the City.
noting the disorganization and variant colors; specifically commented on the
racks located at the Post Offica on Rancho California Road/Margarita Road; and
queded what jurisdiction the City had with respect to requiring a more
aesthetically pleasing appearance. Attomey Cudey advised that he would further
investigate the matter.
With respect to the January 18, 2000 meeting held in conjunction with Riverside
County representatives, Chairman Guerdero relayed that the data presented was
informational, noting that clarification was provided regarding The Integrated
Plan, and Cetap.
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that the Planners Institute would be held
March 1-3, 2000; and advised the Commissioners to contact Administrative
Secretary W~mbedy if they were interested in attending.
B=
Planning Manager Ubnoske noted that the Amedcan Planning Association was
holding a Design Review Workshop on February 26, 2000; relayed that the
workshop would be held at the Utilities Operations Center in Riverside; and
invited the Commissioners to attend.
For Chairman Guen'iero, Planning Manager Ubnoske relayed that at the
February 2, 2000 Planning Commission meeting she would update the
Commission with resect to the results of the inquiry on the Alcohol Sting
Operations.
Planning Manager Ubnoske provided the Commissioner with key cards in order
to access the City Hall building.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:32 P.M. Chairman Guerriero formally adjourned this meeting to Wednesday.
February 2. 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Ddve, Temecula.
Ron Guerriero, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
14
ITEM #3
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commis~/
Debbie Ubnoskek~lanning Manager
March 15, 2000
Director's Hearing Case Update
Planning Director's Agenda items for February, 2000
Date Case No.
February 3, 2000 PA99-0395
February 3, 2000
February 3, 2000
February 10, 2000
February 10, 2000
February 17, 2000
PA99-0412
PA99-0410
PA99-0175
PA99-0113
PA00-0016
Pmposal
To design, construct and
operate an 8,000 square foot
day cam center within the
Roripaugh Estates Specific
Plan
To subdivide 0,74 acres
within the Low Medium
Residential Zone into two
parcels
To occupy and operate a
rental car business within an
existing suite at the
Winchester Square Shopping
Center
The subdivision and rough
grading of 53,41 acres into
10 industrial lots and one
open space lot located
westerly of Diaz Road,
between Dendy Parkway and
Cherry Street
To operate a billlard and dart
club (relocation of an existing
facility) located 28950 Front
Street
To provide small jazz and
blues combos as
entertainment in two
locations at the existing
restaurant facility located in
the Promenade Mall,
Entertainment Plaza
\\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLI\Depts\PLANN1NG\DIRHEAR\MEMOX2000\February 2000.memo.doc
Applicant
Paul Frahm
Paul
Gonzajez
Avis Rent-a-
Car
#50 Center
City
Associates,
LP
High Society
Billiards and
Dad Club
Temecula
Brewing
Company
A~ion
Appmved
Approved
Approved
Continued
Approved
Approved
Date Case No.
February 24, 2000 PA99-0175
Proposal Applicant
The subdivision and rough #50 Center
grading of 53.41 acres into City
10 industrial lots and one Associates,
open space lot located L:P
westerly of Diaz Road,
between Dendy Parkway and
Cherry Street extended.
Action
Continued
Attachments:
1. Action Agendas - Blue Page 3
\\TEMEC_FSI01\VOLI\Dept~\PLANNING\DIP, HEAR\MEMO\2000\February 2000.memo.doe
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDAS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANN1NG\DIRHEAR\MEMO\2OOO\February 2000.memo,doc
3
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 3, 2000 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 Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers,
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Categorical Exemption
ase Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
PA99-0395
Paul Frahm
27321 Nicolas Road
To design, construct and operate an 8,000 square foot day
cam center within the Roripaugh Estates Specific Plan Area.
Proposal will be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Class 32
No. 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects).
Denice Thomas
Annie Bostre-Le
Approval
ACTION:
APPROVED
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
PA99-0412
Paul Gonzalez
41820 Marwood Circle
To subdivide 0.74 acres within the Low Medium Residential
(LM) Zone into 2 parcels.
Proposal will be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Class 15
Categorical Exemption No. 15315 (Minor Land Divisions).
Denice Thomas
Jerry Alegria
Approval
ACTION: APPROVED
!',TEMEC_FS10i\VOLi\USERPUBL\PLANNING\DIP, HEAR\2000\2-3-OO.AGENDA.dOC
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
PA99-0410
Val Pravikoff (Avis Rent-a-Car)
27315 Jefferson Ave
To occupy and operate a rental car business within an existing
suite at the Winchester Square Shopping Center.
Proposal will be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Class 1
Categorical Exemption No. 15301 (Existing Facilities).
Denice Thomas
Clement Jimenez
Approval
ACTION: APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
\I,TEMEC~FSI01\VOLIXUSERPUBL\PLANNING\DIp. HEAR\20OO\2~3.00.AGENDA.doc
2
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 10, 2000 1:30 PM
TEMECULA CITY HALL MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43200 Businese 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 no__! listed on the Agenda, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation
Planning Application No. PA99-0175
#50 Center City Associates, LLP
Weste~y of Diaz Road, between Dendy Parkway and Cherry Street
extended, at the extreme northwest corner of the City of Temecula
corporate boundaries (Assessor's Parcel No. 909-37-003)
The subdivision and rough grading of 53.41 acres into 10 industrial
lots and one open space lot
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Steve Griffin, Project Planner
John Pourkazemi, Associate Planner
Approval
ACTION:
CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 24, 2000
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA99-0113 (Minor Conditional Use
Permit)
High Society Billiards and Dad Club, Mike McMillen, owner
28950 Front Street, Suite 102-105. on the east side of Front Street,
between Santiago Road and State Highway 79 South
To operate a oilliard and dart club {relocation of an existing facility
at 27309 Jefferson Avenue)
Exempt per CEQA Section 15301
Carote K. Donahoe. AICP
Clement Jimenez, Assistant Engineer
Approval
ACTION:
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 17, 2000 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 '
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state vour name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner
before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA00-0016 (Minor Conditional Use
Permit)
Temecula Brewing Company, Scott McMullen, General
Manager
The Promenade Mall, Entertainment Plaza, Suite 1060, 40820
Winchester Road, at the southeast corner of Winchester
Road and Ynez Road
To provide small jazz and blues combos as entertainment in
two locations at the existing restaurant facility, 1)
approximately 160 square feet adjacent to the brewpub in
the interior, and 2) approximately 150 square feet in the
fenced, outside patio area.
Exemption, Class I(b) Section 15301- Existing Facilities of
CEQA
Carole K. Donahoe, AICP
John Pourkazemi
Approval
ACTION: APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
i\TEMEC_FSI01',VOLi\USERPUBL\PLANNING\DIRIqEAR',2000\2-17430.AGENDAdoc
1
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 2000 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
Planner.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior
Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual
speakers.
PUBLIC HEARING
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Case Engineer:
Recommendation
Planning Application No. PA99-0175
#50 Center City Associates, LLP
Westedy of Diaz Road, between Dendy Parkway and Cherry
Street extended, at the extreme northwest corner of the City
of Temecula corporate boundaries (Assessor's Parcel No.
909-37-003)
The subdivision and rough grading of 53.41 acres into 10
industrial lots and one open space lot
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Steve Griffin, Project Planner
John Pourkazemi, Associate Planner
Approval
ACTION:
CONTINUED TO MARCH 9, 2000
ADJOURNMENT
!',TEMEC_FSI01/VOLl',USERpUBL',pLANNING',DIR.HEAR'2000\2.244B.AGENDA.dOC
ITEM #4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission'
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
March 15, 2000
Planning Application PA 97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) - Margarita Canyon,
located adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersectjon of Old Town Front Street
and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor
Prepared By:
Recommendation:
John De Gange, Project Planner
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-,_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 28627), A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 37 ACRE
PARCEL INTO 11 COMMERCIAL LOTS AND ONE OPEN
SPACE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 15,
SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD TOWN
FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 (S) I WESTERN
BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSESSOWS PARCEL NUMBER
922-210-047).
ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning
Application No. PA97-0307(Tentative Parcel Map 28627); and
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627).
BACKGROUND
At the February 16, 2000 meeting the Planning Commission continued this item to this date at the
applicant's request. Just prior to the wdting of this reporl, the applicants, their representatives and staff
met to go over the conditions which were of concem to the applicant.
The current map and assodated conditions of approval are a modification to what has been brought
forward to the Planning Commission at previous meetings. Below is a summary of the modifications
that have been made to the map and the conditions that are being proposed to address staff's concerns
relative to the applicant's proposed access into the site and the assodated traffic impacts:
· The map includes the Not-A-Part parcel at the southwest comer of the Westem Bypass
Corridor and the proposed extension of Old Town Front Street.
The map will be developed in two phases. The properties fronting the Westem Bypass
Corridor (Lots 1 and 12) are considered Phase I, and all the remaining parcels are Phase
II. Development of the lots in Phase II shall not be allowed for a minimum of one year and
the development of acceptable traff'~c flow standards. Within this one-year period the
applicant and the City shall work to establish a Development Agreement, The Development
Agreement will apply the conditions under which the Iota in Phase II will be develobed and
will address any right-of-way needs with respect to any future interchange improvements.
Though the applicant's proposed access point will initially be allowed, the applicant will
provide an access easement approximately 250 feet south of the location of applicant's
proposed access. This easement would become the access road into the project site if
traffic impacts at this intersection warrant it at some future time when the site is developed.
Traffic thresholds will be developed for traffic impacts that all future Phase II projects will be
reviewed against. If the traffic generated by the proposed projects in Phase II exceeds the
aggregate thresholds, that particular scope of development will be prohibited.
Staff feels that the map as currently proposed in conjunction with the conditions of approval that have
been developed, addresses the concerns associated with the proposed location of the applicant's
access. A detailed analysis of the revised map will be presented at the meeting.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. - - Blue Page 3
2. Conditions of Approval for TPM 28627 - Blue Page 6
3. Staff Report (From 2-16-2000 PC Meeting) - Blue Page 18
4. Staff Report (From 12-8-1999 PC Meeting) - Blue Page 19
5. Staff Report (Cover Memo from 11-3-1999 PC Meeting) - Blue Page 20
6. Staff Report (From 10-20-1999 PC Meeting) - Blue Page 21
R:\maff~t~307pa97pcmem4.doc
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-,_
R:~staff~t~307pa97pcmem4.do~
3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-
0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28627), A REQUEST TO
SUBDIVIDE A 37 ACRE PARCEL INTO 11 COMMERCIAL LOTS
AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO
INTERSTATE 15, SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD
TOWN FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 (S)/ WESTERN
BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 922-210-
047)
WHEREAS, Margadta Canyon, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA97-0307 in accordance
with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0307 was processed including, but not limited to
public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0307 on
October 20, 1999, November 17, 1999, December 8, 1999, February 16, 2000 and March 15, 2000 at
a duly noticed public headng as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons
had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA97-0307;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
Section 2. FindinCls. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in appreving Planning
Application No. PA97-0307. hereby makes the following findings as required in the City's Subdivision
Ordinance:
A. The proposed land division based on the design or improvement of the project and as
conditioned by the Conditions of Approval contained in this report is compatible with the General Plan.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The project is consistent with the
General Plan Land Use designation Highway / Toudst.
B. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause sedous public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the Citys
General Plan and Development Code. 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. As conditioned, 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 map proposes access to take access from the future Western Bypass
Corddor and will not obstruct any easements.
R:\s~ffnptB07pa97pcmem4.doc
4
D. As conditioned, the map conforms to the logical development of the site, and is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community and _ac~e__ss and drculation am adequate
for emergency vehicles. The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer, Public Works
Department and Fire Departments. These departments have conditionel the map to ensure public
health, safety and welfare.
E. As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are
not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat. Though the site contains a small area of Riversidian Sage Scrub, a plant
association that the Califomia Gnatcatcher is known to inhabit, a biology study for the site indicates that
none of these animals inhabit the site. In addition, mitigation measures that mitigate any potential
impads to wildlife and habitat have been included within the design of the project and are included within
the mitigation monitoring program for the project. These mitigation measures address all impacts
assodated with the development of the site and the potential impacts development of the site will have
on wildlife or habitat off-site.
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 Conditjons of Approval
have been added to the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted.
Section 4. ,Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally
approves Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28627) a request to subdivide
a 37 acre parcel into 11 commercial lots and one open space lot located adjacent to Interstate 15,
southwest of the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/Westam Bypass Corridor
(Assessor's Parcel Number 922-210-047),subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit
A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this fifteenth day of March, 2000.
Ron Guerdero, 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 fifteenth day of March,
2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~staffil~t~307pa97p~mem4 .doc
6
EXHI BIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 - Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627
Project Description:
The subdivision of a 37-acre parcel into 11 commercial lots
and one open space lot
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
922-210-047
March 15, 2000
March 15, 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department o Planning Division a
cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One
Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand
Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollar ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City
to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under
Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and Califomia Code of Regulations Section 15075.
If within said forty-eight (48) hour pedod the applicant has not delivered to the Community
Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the
project granted shall be void by reason of such failure of to satisfy this condition (Fish and Game
Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of Califomia Subdivision Map Act and to
all the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon wdtten request, if made 30 days pdor 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
theroof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees, consultants, contractors,
legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, 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 dght 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 mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
' R:\staffq~tx307pn97pcmem4.doc
7
The applicant and the City shall immediately undertake the preparation of the following:
i) Preparation of overall traffic thresholds based upon the goal of ensudng that the
aggregate development of the parcels within Phase II of Tentative Parcel Map 28627
is done at a density and intensity of square foot development and provided that the
aggregate for all lots in Phase II does not exceed the safe level of traffic flow as
determined jointly by the Director of Public Works and by the applicanrs traffic engineer
of generally accepted professional traffic engineering standards.
ii) Preparation of a mutually acceptable Development Agreement, as such is defined in
Califomia Government Code Section 65864 that serves to implement the traffic
thresholds set forth in Subsection (i) above. The Development Agreement shall irK:Jude
other terms necessary and desirable, including but not limited to the Citys agreement
to use its best eftotis to expedite the Project Study Report (PSR) being prepared for the
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) in regard to freeway related
improvements.
in the event the applicant and the City are unable to process the Development
Agreement or the development agreement is not adopted by the parties, the physical
development of the parcels in Phase II shall be subject to and regulated by the traffic
thresholds established in Subsection (i) hereinabove. No development of the parcels
in Phase II shall occur, notwithstanding any condition to the contrary, until the traffic
thresholds identified in Subsection (i) above are approved jointly by the Director of
Public Works and the applicant's traffic engineer.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
6. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Cede
(Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set fodh in that ordinance or by providing
documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
The applicant shall receive approval for the purchase of off-site property from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, and submit a mitigation plan
to the Planning Department which details how the applicant has set aside sensitive areas and
has met the requirements of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and the Califomia Department
of Fish and Game for the off-site mitigation of off-site property to compensate for the taking of
the Riversidian Sage Scrub on site, if required.
Development of the site shall preserve the entire amount of Ripadan Woodlands on site. No
grading or cleadng shall occur in this area. Development of the site shall be designed so that
all utility extensions are underground and that graded surface water run off and spillage drains
away from Muraleta and Temecula Creeks. This area shall be fenced off pdor to any grading
activities to prevent any disturbances to wetland or vegetation areas. The project will be
conditioned to re-vegetate all graded and disturbed areas near the channels with native tree and
plant species. The applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to ensure project
compliance with the mitigation monitoring program.
10.
At the time of the submittal of a development proposal or the submittal of a grading plan for the
project site the applicant shall submit a biological survey at the appropriate time of the year to
determine if the California Gnatcatcher, the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly or any other
endangered or threatened species inhabit the site. This biological survey shall propose
appropriate mitigation for development of the site. This biological survey shall be submitted to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Califomia Department of Fish and Game for review
and approval. The applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to ensure project
compliance with the mitigation monitoring program.
R:\staffrptx,307pa97pcm~m4.doc
11.
The applicant shall obtain a 404 Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a 1603
Streambed AJteration Permit from the Ca~ifomia Department of Fish end Game, if required. The
applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to ensure project compliance with the
mitigation monitoring program.
12.
When future development is proposed on the site a Phase II archaeological study shall be
conducted. This study shall establish appropriate mitjgation to address any significant impacts
that may occur.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
13. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of ~he Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
1)
This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory.
All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute
of Technology, Palomar Observatonj recommendations, Ordinance No. 655.
2) This project is within the 100-year floodplain.
3) This project is within a dam inundation area.
4) This project is within a Liquifaction Zone.
5) This project is within a Subsidence Zone.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
14.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however
solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Director
approval.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
15.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by
this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
16.
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
17.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their
omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. The tentative
map shall show the location of all right-of-way corridors as specified within these conditions of
approval.
18. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of
Public Works pdor to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road
right-of-way.
R:\sta~q>tX.307pag7pcmem4.dec
9
19. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works pdor to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
20.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Califomia Department of Transportation
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of-way.
21.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for
consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall
be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylara.
The Developer shall provide the required street improvements as directed by the Director of
Public Works as part of the phased map.
23.
The map may be phased in two phases. Phase I to include Parcels I and 12 and Phase II to
include Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
24.
Prior to approval of Phase II or any subsequent phases, the Developer shall submit a Traffic
Study to determine the Level of Service (LOS) of impacted intersections. The LOS should be
"D", peak hour or better as determined by the Director of Public Works before any further maps
are approved.
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:
25.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive wdtten
dearanca from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Rancho California Water District
Eastem Municipal Water Distdct
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct
City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Cable TV Franchise
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
Califomia Fish & Game
Army Corps of Engineers
Caltrans clearance shall only be required to demonstrate the satisfaction of any condition or
conditions that the City of Temecula imposes on the planning application pursuant to this
Resolution No. that are within the jurisdiction of Caltrans.
26.
The Developer shell construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula standards
unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public
Works:
a. Improve Western Bypass Corddor (Major Highway Standards modified to 88' R/W) to
include dedication of full width street right-of-way within underlying properties including
the remainder section to the north of Western Bypass Corridor, installation of full width
street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage radiities,
signing and striping, utilities (incJuding but not limited to water and sewer).
R:~taffnptx307pa97Fmem4 .do~
10
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Improve Front Street (Pdndpal Collector Highway Standards - 78' R/VV) to include
dedication of full width street right-of-way, installation of full width street improvements,
paving, curt} and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage fadlities, signing and striping,
utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
The Public Works Director may require, and the Developer shall promptly construct to
the spedfications imposed by the City, an additional twenty four (24) foot wide Roadway
at the point located approximately 250 feet west of the currently proposed extension of
Front Street. The Pubtic Works Director shall, in writing, direct the Developer to
commence the construction of the Roadway only upon his determination that the traffic
use adsing from the physical improvements of parcels 1 and 12 of Parcel Map 28627
exceed the traffic thresholds established pursuant to Condition No. 5 of this Resolution
No.
The Developer shaft submit an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Roadway and Utility Pu~oses
along Western Bypass Corridor for an additional 12 feet above and beyond the proposed 88 feet
dedication. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Wonks
and City Attorney.
The Developer shall submit an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Roadway and Utility Purposes
along westedy proposed property boundary for adequate right-of-way to construct freeway
access ramps across the site. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the
Director of Public Wonks and City Attorney.
The Developer shall submit an irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Roadway and Utility Purposes
along Front Street for an additional 24 feet above and beyond the proposed 78 feet dedication.
The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works and City
Attorney.
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per
Caltrans' standards for transition to existing street sections.
Relinquish and waive dght of access from Westem Bypass Corridor on the Parcel Map other
than the one access which shall be restricted to right in-right out only.
Relinquish and waive dght of access to and from State Route 79 South on the Parcel Map.
The Developer shall conduct a warrant analysis for the signal at the intersection of Westem
Bypass Corridor/State Route 79 South and Front Street.
The Developer shall modify the said signal accordingly.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of
the street improvement plans:
Street centedine grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or 208.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets and shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and
401.
R:~ffll}tL307pa97pcmem4 .doc
11
b. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project
boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
c. Minimum centedine radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113.
d. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section.
e. All street and ddveway centedine intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
Landscaping shall be limited in the comer cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent
to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through
curb outlets per City Standard No. 301.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be
provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-
of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other
disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
Comer property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities
shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No.
805.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or
other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of
Public Works.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an
existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City
Council approval of the Parcel Map, the Developer shall make an application for
reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel Map
to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of
the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department and Public Works Department for
review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS:
The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
Special Study Zones.
Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
Archeological resources found on the site.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraints Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject preperty.
R:\atafftl>t~07pa97pcmem4 .do~
43.
A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic
calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
Distdct for approval pdor to recordation of the Parcel Map or the issuance of any permit. A
permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work
within their right-of-way.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable 'iV shall be
provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed
in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV, and/or secudty
systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
45.
The Developer shall notify the Cit,/s cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shell
be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as datermined by the Department
of Public Works.
47.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shell be required and shall be delineated and
noted on the Parcel Map.
48.
Easements for joint use driveways shall be provided prior to approval of the Parcel Map or
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
49.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage radiities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the Parcel Map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shell be submitted for review and recorded
as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of
road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the Parcel Map.
A note shall be added to the Parcel Map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions. '
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
50.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive wdtten
clearance from the following agencies:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Health Department
· Community Services Distdct
· General Telephone
· Southern California Edison Company
· Southern California Gas Company
· Caltrans clearance shall only be required to demonstrate the satisfaction of any condition or
conditions that the City of Temecula imposes on the planning application pursuant to this
Resolution No. that are within the jurisdiction of Caltrans.
51.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and approved by the Depadment of Public Works prior to commencement
of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion contrd measures to protect the site
and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
R:\staff~tLt07pa97pcmem4.doc
53.
55.
57.
58.
59.
60.
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 repod shall address all soils
conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered
structures and preliminary pavement sections.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and
submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The repod shall
address spedal study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location
of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shell include recommendations to mitigate the
impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
Provisions to mitigate drainage and the storm drain improvements as shown on Tentative Parcel
Map 28627 are conceptual and may require modification. The design of the storm drain system
will be determined upon review and approval of the grading and storm drain improvement plans.
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 shell 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 pdvate, drainage fadlities
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 pdvate property. The study shall
include a capacity analysis vedfying the adequacy of all fadlities. Any upgrading or upsizing of
drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as pad of
development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a
recurrence interval of one hundred yeare.
This development must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board and
Ordinance No. 99-10. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) hes
been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. Direct discharge of runoff from the site into
Murrieta Creek is prohibited and urban pollutants shall be mitigated as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
The Developer shall post secudty and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and
erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to
approval by the Department of Public Works.
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 preperly, no new
charge needs to be paid.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on
adjoining propedies. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone "A" and is
subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, the Developer
shell demonstrate that the project complies with Chepter 15.12 of the Temecula Munidpal Code
for development within Flood Zone "A". A Flood Rain Development Permit is required prior to
issuance of any permit. Commercial subdivisions may obtain a LOMR at their discretion,
A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a format acr_eptable to the
Depadment and include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting site
runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities.
Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entedng the property from adjacent areas.
'The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and
any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway shall
be shown on the improvement plan.
Pdor to Issuance of Building Permits
61.
Parcel Map 28627 shall be approved and recorded; except that Parcel 12, which is existing Lot
11, MB 15 15/726, San Diego County Records. may proceed subject to the conditions of
approval of the development application for that lot regardless of whether PM 28627 has been
recorded at the time building permits are sought for the project.
62.
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.
63.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, the
approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards and
accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
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
65.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive wdtten
clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water Distdct
· Eastem Municipal Water Distdct
· Department of Public Works
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies
shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
67.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
68.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurlenance 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.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Prior to the Issuehoe of e Building Permit
69.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the
Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees.
R:\gaffq~tx307pa97pcmem4.doc
15
FIREDEPARTMENT
70.
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 Califomia
Building Cede (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the
time of building plan submittal.
71.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commerdal 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 4 hour
duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted dudng 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 ac~_~unt all information as
provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
72.
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 feat from any point on the street or Fire Department
access rood(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrede of exjsting fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2,
903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
73.
Maximum col-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum tuming radius on any cul-de-
sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3)
74.
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)
75.
Pdor 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 roods shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV.
(CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
76.
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. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feat. ( CFC sec 902)
77.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-
four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical dearanoo of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6)
inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
78.
Pdor to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred and f'ffiy
(150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating
fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
79.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall fumish 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, sparing 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)
80.
Pdor 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)
81.
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)
Special Conditions
Pdor to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland-
vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II-A)
83.
Pdor to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall
include, but are not limited to, encJosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls),
and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A)
OTHER AGENCIES
The applicant shall cempiy with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 2, 1997, a copy of which is
attached.
85.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation Distdct transmittal dated November 10, 1997, a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water
Distdct's transmittal dated October 1, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
87.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in Eastern Information Center's
transmittal dated October 13, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
88.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations sat forth in the Califomia Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) transmittal dated October 20. 1997. a copy of which is attached.
By plating my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with
these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to
Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Signature
R:\staff~t~307pa97pcm=m4.do~
17
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STAFF REPORT FROM
FEBRUARY 16, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
February 16, 2000
Planning Application PA 97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) - Margarita Canyon,
located adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town Front
Street and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor
Prepared By:
Recommendation:
John De Gange, Project Planner
The Community Development Depadment - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 28627), A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 37 ACRE
PARCEL INTO 11 COMMERCIAL LOTS AND ONE OPEN
SPACE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 15,
SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD TOWN
FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 (S) / WESTERN
BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
922-210-047).
ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning
Application No. PA97-0307(Tentative Parcel Map 28627);
and
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28827).
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97pcmem3.dOc
ANALYSIS
At the January 19, 2000 meeting the Planning Commission continued this item to this date be: : ..se
at that time the issues pertaining to the location of the proposed access into the site were still
unresolved, During the time between the last meeting and this meeting staff and the applicant met
and conceptually agreed on how the project could be revised to address staffs concerns relative
to the spacing of their proposed access. Listed below are the items which the applicant and staff
conceptually agreed upon:
· The map will is to be revised to include the not-a-part parcel at the southwest comer of
the Western Bypass Corridor and the proposed extension of Old Town Front Street.
Though the applicant's proposed access point will initially be allowed, the applicant will
provide an access easement approximately 250 feet south of the location of applicant's
proposed access, This easement would become the access into the project site if traffic
impacts at this intersection warrant it at some future time when the site is developed.
Staff will develop a threshold for traffic impacts that all future projects will be reviewed
against. If the traffic generated by any proposed projects exceed these thresholds
development will be prohibited.
The map will be developed in phases. The properties fronting the Western Bypass
Corridor will be considered phase I and all the remaining parcels will be phase II.
Development of the lots in Phase II shall not be allowed for a minimum of one year.
Within one year of the approval of this map, a development agreement will be reached.
The development agreement will outline the conditions under which the lots in Phase II
will be developed and will address any finalized plans with respect to the future
interchange improvements.
Just prior to the writing of this report, the applicant submitted a revised map. The revisions to this
map include the inclusion the parcel at the southwest corner of the Western Bypass Corridor and
the proposed extension of Old Town Front Street that was previously designated as Not-A-Part on
this map, an indication that the project will be developed in two phases with the parcels fronting the
Western Bypass Corridor being Phase I and the remaining parcel as Phase II, and the placement
of and access easement 250 feet west of the applicant's proposed access point.
Staff feels that the applicant's proposal, in concept, will address the concerns associated with the
proposed location of the applicant's access and as a consequence is in the process of drafting
additional conditions of approval and modifying others. A detailed analysis of the revised map and
including a resolution and revised conditions will be prepared and presented at the meeting.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97pcmem3.doc
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
STAFF REPORT FROM
DECEMBER 8, 1999
R:\STAFFILvI~07pa97pgmem4 .do~
19
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 8, 1999
Planning Application No. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner and All Moghadam, Senior Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department ~ Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning
Application No. PA97-0307(Tentative Parcel Map 28627);
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627);
and
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- approving Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report, public testimony received at the public hearing, and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Margarita Canyon LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Lohr & Associates/Markham and Associates
PROPOSAL:
To subdivide an approximately 37 acre parcel into 10 commercial lots
and one open space lot (TPM 28627).
LOCATION:
Adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town
Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS (Open Space)
EXISTING ZONING:
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS-C (Conservation)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
South: OS-C (Conservation)/HR (Hillside Residential)
East: Interstate 15
West: OS-C (Conservation)/HR (Hillside Residential)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97,pC2.doc
1
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North: Gas Station/Mini-Mart
South: Vacant
East: 1-15, commercial retail center, apartments, single-family
residences
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Acreage for the Project (Gross)
Total Acreage for the Project (Net)
Number of Lots
Number of Open Space Lots
Average Lot Size (gross)
Average Lot Size (net)
Minimum Lot Size
36.8 acres
12.61 acres
10
1 (10.48 acres )
2,46 acres
1.26 acres
1.04 acres (gross)
0.51 acres (net)
BACKGROUND
An application for this project was formally submitted on September 8, 1997. A Development
Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on October 9, 1997, with written comments being
provided shortly after. At the applicant's request, this project originally went before the Planning
Commission on October 20, 1999 despite the fact that staff had not yet deemed the application
complete due to outstanding, unresolved traffic issues. As a consequence, at the October 20th
meeting, staffs recommendation was for denial and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be
prepared. At this meeting, the item was continued to November 3, 1999, at the applicanrs request.
At the November 3rd meeting, the Planning Commission granted staffs request to continue the
project in order provide staff time to consider options which potentially could mitigate the traffic
concerns which resulted in staff recommending denial and that an EIR be prepared. Since that
time, staff has evaluated various site access alternatives and has prepared a condition of approval
that will mitigate traffic impacts created by the applicant's proposal. Consequently, this report
presents analysis, findings and conditions which would allow staff to recommend approval of this
project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is a subdivision of approximately 37 acres into ten commercial lots and one open
space lot. The site is located adjacent to Interstate 15 to the east, Murrieta Creek to the west and
Temecula Creek to the south. The applicant is proposing to extend Old Town Front Street from
its current intersection with the future Western Bypass Corridor into the project site ultimately
terminating in a cul-de-sac. As proposed, all the lots for development wilt front and take access
from the extension of Old Town Front Street.
The project proposes ten commercial lots ranging in size from 1.04 to 11.29 gross acres (0.51 to
4.64 net acres). Lots 7,8,9 and 10 all have significant areas which are within the 100-year
Floodway (Zone AE) and these areas are being excluded from development. The open space lot
which comprises 10.48 acres consists mainly of the Muraleta and Temecula Creek Channels. The
applicant is proposing to keep this area as open space in perpetuity with the future possibility that
F:%DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pAgT.pC2.doc
2
ownership can be transferred over to an appropriate agency or can be used for a mitigation land
bank.
ANALYSIS
Traffic Issues
The development of the project, as proposed by the applicant, is expected to cause a substantial
increase to traffic volumes on State Route 79 SouthNVestern Bypass between Old Town Front
Street and the Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange. Although the applicant's traffic study and
subsequent revisions prepared by the applicant's traffic consultant (Robert Kahn, John Kain and
Associates Inc.) indicates acceptable interim operating conditions, it is staffs opinion that the
proposed location of the project's access will adversely impact traffic flows in the vicinity of the
project, the Interstate 15/State Route 79 interchange and Old Town Front Street. Congestion and
difficult vehicular movements will occur at intersections within the projecrs vicinity due to
substandard intersection spacing (160 feet) between the 1-15 Southbound Ramp and Old Town
Front Street, and the traffic volumes generated by the proposed project (7,909 ADT).
Another concem is that the increased traffic volumes and the inadequate spacing between the I-15
ramps and the project access will increase conflicting vehicular movements. Because of the short
distance between intersections and the projected heavy left-turn movements into the project, I-15
southbound vehicles wishing to access the site will be forcad into hazardous merging situations.
This situation will also cause the traffic to back-up on the 1-15 southbound ramp while vehicles wait
to get an opportunity to enter the left-tum pocket in order to access the site. The anticipated heavy
left-tum movement into the site (351 vehicles dudng p.m. peak hour) and lack of adequate storage,
will also cause gridlock at the I-15 southbound ramp signal.
Problems related to safety, queuing, merging and weaving are of serious concem to both the City
and to Caltrans, which is responsible for the interchange and its signals. Because of safety and
traffic flow issues, Caltrans now specifies that new signals are to be located a minimum of 410 feet
from freeway ramp signals, with a preferred spacing of 525 feet. The many existing examples of
signals spaced much more closely to interchanges illustrate that even where operations have been
optimized as much as possible, acceptable traffic operation is rarely maintained during peak hours,
particularly as traffic volumes increase. The proposed project access is not directly subject to
Caltrans regulations; most significantly, Caltrans policy does not govern its placement because the
intersection is outside of Caltrans' right-of-way. Rather, Caltrans policy serves as a statewide
industry standard for proper practice and design. In the case of a signal in such close proximity to
adjacent signals, the provision of space for queuing and to serve a variety of traffic movements is
critical. Although in this case the traffic signal cannot be relocated, the project's access driveway
to the site can be relocated to the west in order to reduce its impact to the nearby traffic signals,
The weaving and merging movement required for motorists exiting from southbound 1-15 and
accessing the new development would be difficult, and at times, impossible. Drivers performing
this traffic movement will be required to turn right from the ramp; merge and weave across at least
two lanes of traffic; enter the westbound left turn lane at the development intersection; and. most
frequently, come to a stop while awaiting the opportunity to make their left turn. This maneuver
would have to be safely completed in a distance significantly less than the 160 feet between
intersections. With the likelihood of forced lane changes and rapid acceleration/deceleration within
the traffic stream, it is staffs opinion that this movement will greatly compromise safety and hamper
the flow of through traffic. Coupled with queued traffic between the interchange and the proposed
access location, the weaving movement is even more cumbersome and disruptive to traffic flow.
This operation will continually deteriorate with the significant increase in traffic volume forecasted
within the City's General Plan. Queues extending through upstream intersections create significant
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
3
traffic problems. The resulting gridlock is disruptive to turning movements and cross-street flow,
and may impact motorist and pedestrian safety.
In summary, the location of the access road at the intersection of SR-79 (S) and Old Town Front
Street (as it is being proposed by the applicant) is contrary to proper engineering practice, and
insufficient spacing from existing signals will result in problematic queuing and weaving. As a
consequence traffic flow will be disrupted and motodst safety throughout the interchange area will
be reduced.
It should be noted that a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Highway
79(S), is not needed until the Western Bypass Corddot is constructed. However, the access to the
site as proposed, will necessitate operation of the traffic signal at the intersection of Old Town Front
Street and Highway 79(S) which is 160 feet west of the I-15 southbound off-ramp. For reference,
the spacing between the intersections of Front Street/Jefferson Avenue and I-15 southbound ramp
is approximately 600 feet on Rancho California Road and 400 feet on Winchester Road.
Caltrans and the City have requested that the applicant investigate the feasibility of moving their
access westerly to reduce the project's impacts to less than significant, but the applicant has
refused. Because the only remaining environmental concern is the project's access and the
resulting impacts to the intersection operations, staff proposes that the project be approved
conditionally with a condition requiring that the project be redesigned so that the access is
relocated westerly a minimum of 250 feet from the intersection of Old Town Front Street,
Staff recognizes that the relocation of the project's access westerly approximately 250 creates a
less than ideal situation. New challenges, such as offset access points and back to back left-turn
pockets between Old Town Front Street and the access point into the site are introduced. Moving
the access point westerly; however, reduces Caltrans' and staffs concerns related to merging,
intersection level of service and safety. Staff feels that the shortcomings associated with this
proposal are far less impactive to the operation of the southbound ramp signal and overall traffic
flow in the vicinity of the interchange, because by relocating the access to the west, a greater
distance is provided for the vehicles from the southbound off ramp to merge and weave to the
westbound left-turn lanes into the site. The additional spacing between the ramp signal and the
project's access, will improve safety and the operational capacity of Highway 79(S) by minimizing
grid locks and backing up the traffic on the 1-15 southbound ramp. It should also be noted that
when the Western Bypass corridor is ultimately constructed, the access to the site could be
modified to provide for more efficient and safer circulation.
Map Recon~auration
Staffs concerns relative to the proposed location of the project's access and the resulting traffic
impacts, has necessitated the addition of proposed conditions of approval which require the
applicant to redesign the project with the access relocated a minimum of 250 west of the current
proposed access point. Because these conditions require the redesign of the map, a number of
specific criteria have been included to insure that the project will still be in compliance with the
City's General Plan and Development Code, and it will not create any new environmental impacts.
These criteria which are contained within the conditions of approval include:
1)
2)
3)
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PAg7.pC2 .doc
A revised map must be submitted to Public Works and Planning staff for approval
prior to final recordation of the map.
The redesigned map shall have the same number of lots and the same amount of
net developable acreage as was being proposed in the original map.
The redesigned map shall comply with all standards and requirements specified in
the Development Code.
4
4)
The rodesign of map shall not disturb any riparian habitat, and development shall
occur completely outside the floodway.
When the applicant submits the redesigned map, in accordance with these conditions, staff will
review it to insure compliance with all the cdteria specified above. Once staff is satisfied that all
these criteria have been met and has approved the map, it will then be moved forward for final
recordation.
Bioloaical Issues
The project site is approximately 37 acres of vacant property which includes portions of the
Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A biological impact report for the project site was
prepared, This report reveals that the ultimate development of the proposed project site will result
in the removal of 30 acres of onsite Non-Native Grassland, the removal of approximately 0.5 acre
of the total Riversidian Sage Scrub onsite, and the preservation of the entire six acres of Riparian
Woodland within the boundaries of the project site.
It has been determined that impacts to biological resources and the loss of this habitat as a result
of this project will not be significant because: 1 ) the 30 acres of non-native grassland which will be
removed is not considered a significant resource; 2) the six acres of Riparian Woodlands will be
preserved; 3) and of the one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub, 0.5 acres will be preserved on site
and the other 0.5 acres will be mitigated with the purchase of off-site property,
The Riparian Woodlands and jurisdictional wetlands will be preserved with the exception of 0.07
acres of area associated with a small unnamed drainage channel which bisects the site and flows
into Murrieta Creek as identified within a Wetlands Delineation study for the project site conducted
by LSA Associates. For this small area, the applicant will be required to mitigate through obtaining
a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Federal Clean Water
Act and a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and
Game.
The project site contains significant biological resources and the proposed project has the potential
to impact these biological resources. However, these impacts will not be significant if the mitigation
measures described above and appropriate conditions of approval for this project are implemented.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was prepared for this project and distributed on October 1, 1999. Findings within
this initial study indicated that the project, as the applicant is proposing it, would have a potentially
significant impact on the environment. This finding was based on the tact that the project will
significantly increase traffic volumes, which coupled with the fact that there is substandard and
limited spacing between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the applicant proposes
the project will take access) and the I-15 southbound ramp signal, congestion and unsafe vehicular
movements will result and hazardous merging situations will be created. As a consequence, staff
originally recommended that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required for the project.
Since that time, staff has analyzed various alternative locations for the projecrs access and has
come to the conclusion that if the access point into the site is relocated approximately 250 feet west
of its current proposed location, the impacts associated with the limited spacing between
intersections and the resulting unsafe vehicular movements and the hazardous merging situations,
can be largely mitigated. Therefore, staff is proposing a condition of approval requiring that the
access into the site be relocated approximately 250 feet to the west. It is staff's opinion that if this
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97 .PC2.doc
5
condition is included and implemented, the concerns relating to the above discussed traffic impacts
can be mitigated to a level of insignificance and staff would recommend that the Planning
Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. If this condition is not included,
it is staff's opinion that the traffic impacts are not adequately mitigated and that this project may
have a significant effect on the environment and therefore, it is recommended that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with the General Plan's policies and is also consistent with the zoning
standards regarding the HTC district as specified in the Development Code. The project as
proposed by the applicant, however, does not comply with the General Plan Circulation Element
Policy 1.2 which requires an evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with new
development prior to project approval, and requires adequate mitigation measures prior to, or
concurrent with, project development; and Policy 1.4 which requires new development to pursue
trip reduction and transportation systems management measures to reduce and limit congestion
at intersections and along streets within the City. It is staffs opinion, though, that if the condition
requiring the access into the site to be relocated approximately 250 west of the applicanrs
proposed access point is included that the project is in compliance with all components of the
General Plan Circulation Element.
With respect to the applicant's proposal, where location of the access road into the site is only 160
from the intersection of the I-15 on and off ramps and the extension of the future Western Bypass
Corridor, it has been staffs position that although the traffic study and its subsequent revisions
prepared by the applicant's traffic consultant indicate an acceptable interim operation condition, the
project will increase traffic volumes, cause congestion and unsafe vehicular movements, and create
hazardous merging situations. Given these concerns with the applicant's proposal, it would be
staffs recommendation that an EIR be prepared. However, if the project is conditioned to relocate
the project access 250 feet to the west of its current proposed location, staff feels that the traffic
concerns discussed above would be mitigated and that the project could be approved with a
mitigated negative declaration based upon the mitigation measures contained in the mitigation
monitoring program, the analysis and Findings within this staff report, and based on the conditions
of approval prepared for the project.
FINDINGS
Planninq Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
The proposed land division based the design or improvement of the project and as
conditioned by the Conditions of Approval contained in this report is compatible with the
General Plan. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The
project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation Highway / Tourist.
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 and Development Code. 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.
3. As conditioned, 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 map proposes access to take access from
the future Western Bypass Corridor and will not obstruct any easements.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PCZ.doc
6
As conditioned, the map conforms to the logical development of the site, and is compatible
with the health, safety and welfare of the community and access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles. The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic
Engineer, Public Works Department and Fire Departments. These departments have
conditioned the map to ensure public health, safety and welfare.
As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat. Though the site contains a small area of Riversidian Sage
Scrub, a plant association that the California Gnatcatcher is known to inhabit, a biology
study for the site indicates that none of these animals inhabit the site. In addition, mitigation
measures that mitigate any potential impacts to wildlife and habitat have been included
within the design of the project and are included within the mitigation monitoring program
for the project. These mitigation measures address all impacts associated with the
development of the site and the potential impacts development of the site will have on
wildlife or habitat off-site.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 8
Conditions of Approval- Blue Page 12
Initial Study - Blue Page 13
Exhibits - Blue Page 14
A. Vicinity Map
B, Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.pC2.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
F:\DEPTS\pLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97-PC2.doc
8
A'FI'ACHMENT NO. I
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28627), A REQUEST
TO SUBDIVIDE A 37 ACRE PARCEL INTO 10 COMMERCIAL
LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO
INTERSTATE t5, SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD
TOWN FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 (S)I WESTERN
BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 922-210-
047)
WHEREAS, Margarita Canyon, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA97-0307 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development, which the City has adopted
by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No, PA97-0307 was processed including, but not limited
to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0307 on
October 20, 1999, November 17, 1999 December 8, 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 headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA97-0307;
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. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PA97-0307, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 7.1 of
County Ordinance No. 460:
A. The proposed land division based the design or improvement of the project and as
conditioned by the Conditions of Approval contained in this report is compatible with the General
Plan. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The project is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation Highway / Tourist.
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 and Development Code. 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. As conditioned, 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,
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
9
property within the proposed land division. The map proposes access to take access from the
future Western Bypass Corridor and will not obstruct any easements.
D. As conditioned, the map conforms to the logical development of the site, and is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community and access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles. The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer,
Public Works Department and Fire Departments. These departments have conditioned the map
to ensure public health, safety and welfare.
E. As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements
are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat. Though the site contains a small area of Riversidian Sage Scrub,
a plant association that the California Gnatcatcher is known to inhabit, a biology study for the site
indicates that none of these animals inhabit the site. In addition, mitigation measures that mitigate
any potential impacts to wildlife and habitat have been included within the design of the project and
are included within the mitigation monitoring program for the project. These mitigation measures
address all impacts associated with the development of the site and the potential impacts
development of the site will have on wildlife or habitat off-site.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, therefore, is
hereby granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28627) a
request to subdivide a 37 acre parcel into 10 commercial lots and one open space lot located
adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Highway 79
(S)/ Western Bypass Corridor (Assessor's Parcel Number 922-210-047),subject to the project
specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this
reference.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pA97.PC2.doc
10
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this eighth day of December, 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 eighth day of
December, 1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
11
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F:\DEPTS\pLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
12
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 - Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
The subdivision of a 37-acre parcel into 10 commercial
lots and one open space lot
922-210-047
December 8, 1999
December 8, 2001
PLANNING DIVISION
Ten Calendar Days Prior to the City Council Hearing
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One
Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One
Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to
enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant 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 such failure
of to satisfy this condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions,
awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek
monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the
approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal
board or legislative body including actions approved by the 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
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).dOC
action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such
defense.
If subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasincl plan shall be submitted to and approved by
the Planning Manager.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Division.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
The applicant shall receive approval for the purchase of off-site property from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. Submit a mitigation
plan to the Planning Department which details how the applicant has set aside sensitive
areas and has met the requirements of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Dept, of Fish and Game for the off-site purchase of off-site property to compensate for the
taking of the Riversidian Sage Scrub on site.
Development of the site shall preserve the entire amount of Riparian Woodlands on site.
No grading or clearing shall occur in this area. Development of the site shall be designed
so that all utility extensions are underground and that surface water run off and spillage
drains away from Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. This area shall be fencad off prior to any
grading activities to prevent any disturbances to wetland or vegetation areas. The project
will be conditioned to revegetate all graded and disturbed areas near the channels with
native tree and plant species. The applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to
insure project compliance with the mitigation monitoring program.
10.
At the time of the submittal of a development proposal or the submittal of a grading plan for
the project site the applicant shall submit a biological survey at the appropriate time of the
year to determine if the California Gnatcatcher, the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly or any
other endangered or threatened species inhabit the site, This biological survey shall
propose apprcpdate mitigation for development of the site, This biological survey shall be
submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and
Game for review and approval. The applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to
insure project compliance with the mitigation monitoring program.
11.
The applicant shall obtain a 404 permit from the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service and a 1601
Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and Game. The
applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to insure project compliance with the
mitigation monitoring program,
12,
When future development is proposed on the site a Phase II archaeological study shall be
conducted, This study shall establish appropriate mitigation to address any significant
impacts that may occur.
F:\DEPTS~PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
2
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
13. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
1)
This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar
Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the
California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations,
Ordinance No. 655.
2) This project is within the 100-year floodplain.
3) This project is within a dam inundation area.
4) This project is within a Liquifaction Zone.
5) This project is within a Subsidence Zone.
c. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's)
1)
CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The
CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open
spaca, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all
buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways.
2)
No lot or unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with
the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which
have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common
facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to
meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty
to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such
entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory
membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of
assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services.
Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions
required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence
of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior
to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to
the City for public purposes.
3)
Every owner of a unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such unit or lot,
either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a
share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the
common areas and facilities.
4)
In addition to the other provisions described in this section which must be
included in the CC&Rs, the applicant shall also include the following text in
the CC&Rs:
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~07pa97.COA(TPM).doc
3
Consent of City of Temecula
Condition No. 15.C.1) of the Conditions of Approval of Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627)
require the City to review and approve the CC&Rs for the Tract.
Declarant acknowledges that the City has reviewed these CC&Rs
and that its review is limited to a determination of whether the
proposed CC&Rs properly implement the requirements of the
Conditions of Approval for the Tract. The City's consent to these
CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the
appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs,
including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements
and encroachments, pdvate maintenance requirements, architecture
and landscape controls, assessments procedures, assessment
enforcement, resolution of disputes or procedural matters.
In the event of a conflict between the Conditions of Approval of the
land use entitlements issued by the City for the Tract or federal,
state or local laws, ordinances, and resolutions and these CC&Rs,
the provisions of the Conditions of Approval and federal, state or
local laws, ordinances, and regulations shall prevail, notwithstanding
the language of the CC&Rs.
These CC&Rs shall not be terminated, amended or otherwise
modified without the express written consent of the Planning
Manager of the City of Temecula.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'~307pa97.COA(TpM).doc
4
Consent of the City of Temecula
Condition No. 15.C.1) of the Conditions of Approval of Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627)
requires the City of Temecula to review and approval the CC&Rs for
the Tract. The City's review of these CC&Rs has been limited to a
determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs properly implement
the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Tract. The
City's Consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any
approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of
the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private
easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements,
architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of
assessments, resolution of disputes or procedural matters, Subject
to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC&Rs.
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
Approved as to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
14.
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 28627) shall be redesigned so that the proposed
access road into the site is a minimum of 250 feet west of the intersection of existing Front
Street and Highway 79(S) (the future Western Bypass Corridor). This revised map must
be submitted to Public Works and Planning staff for approval prior to final recordation of the
map. The redesigned map shall have the same number of lots and the same amount of net
developable acreage as was being proposed in the original map, The redesigned map shall
comply with all standards and requirements specified in the Development Code.
Development of the site shall not disturb any riparian habitat and shall occur completely
outside the floodway.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
15.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however
solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning
Director approval.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
16.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project.
Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%307pa97.COA(TPM),dOc
5
General Requirements
17.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
18.
A Grading Permit for either rough or predse grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
19.
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.
20.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of-
way.
21.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and
shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
22.
Tentative Parcel Map 28627 shall be redesigned to locate the proposed southerly
access road a minimum of 250 feet west of the intersection of existing Front Street
and Highway 79 South. The parcel configuration and alignment of access road shall
be revised to reflect westerly entrance into the subdivision.
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:
23.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
· City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Health Department
· Cable TV Franchise
· Caltrans
· Community Services District
· General Telephone
· Southern California Edison Company
· Southern California Gas Company
· Fish & Game
· Army Corps of Engineers
24. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works:
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRP~307pa97,COA~rPM).doc
6
25.
26.
27.
The proposed southerly access road shall be located a minimum of 250 feet
westerly of the centerline of the intersection of existing Front Street and Highway
79 South. The location and alignment of the access road shaft be approved by the
Director of Public Works and the Planning Director. Tentative Parcel Map 28627
shaft be revised to reflect the realignment of the access road and the revised
parcel configuration.
The Developer shall offer for dedication for street right-of-way the portion of Lot
11, Town of Temecula, Map Book 15, Page 726, San Diego County, lying north
of the southerly of the southerly right-of-way line of the future extension of the
Western Bypass Corridor.
Improve the access road (Principal/Industrial Collector Street Standard No. 103 -
78' R/W) from the future extension of the Western Bypass Corridor including the
section extended along the entire easterly boundary of and within the underlying
lot described as Lot 11, Town of Temecula, Map Book 15, Page 726, San Diego
County, to the terminus of the proposed cul-de-sac to include dedication of full
width street right-of-way, installation of full width street improvements, paving,
curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping
and utilities (including but not Hmited to water and sewer).
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteda shall be observed in the
design of the street improvement plans:
Street canterline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00%
minimum over A.C. paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or
208.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinanca No. 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos.
400 and 401.
Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the
project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining
properties.
Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113.
All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section.
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 concantrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through curb outlets per City Standard No. 301.
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.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or
other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
7
28.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Western Bypass Corridor and State
Route 79 South on the Parcel Map.
29.
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.
30.
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.
31.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of
an existing Assessment Distdct 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.
32. Any delinquent properly taxes shall be paid.
33.
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 and Public
Works Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the
ECS:
The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
Special Study Zones.
Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
Archeological resources found on the site.
34.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property,
35,
The Developer shall provide a development agreement addressing their participation in
the construction of the Western Bypass Corridor, The form of the development
agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Alternatively, the Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all
rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities
District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the
proposed "Western Bypass Corridor' or "Medians in accordance with the General Plan".
The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City
Attorney,
36.
A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Parcel Map or the
issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-way.
37. 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. Telephone, cable
TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRP'~307pa97.COA(TPM),doc
8
38. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable 'IV Standards at time of street improvements.
39.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
40.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan"
in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
41.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated and noted on the Parcel Map.
42.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private property.
43.
Easements for joint use driveways shall be provided prior to approval of the Parcel Map
or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
44.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the Parcel Map if they are located within the
land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for
review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage
facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage
easements and shown on the Parcel Map. A note shall be added to the Parcel Map
stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
45.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Health Department
· Caltrans
· Community Services District
· General Telephone
· Southern California Edison Company
· Southern California Gas Company
46.
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.
47.
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.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
9
48.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering
geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan
check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical
hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report
shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and
liquefaction.
49.
Provisions to mitigate drainage and the storm drain improvements as shown on
Tentative Parcel Map 28627 are conceptual and may require modification. The design
of the storm drain system will be determined upon review and approval of the grading
and storm drain improvement plans. 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.
50.
This development must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board and Ordinance No. 99-10. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice
of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. Direct discharge of
runoff from the site into Murrieta Creek is prohibited and urban pollutants shall be
mitigated as approved by the Department of Public Works.
51.
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.
52.
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.
53.
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.
54.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone "A"
and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans,
the Developer shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15.12 of the
Temecula Municipal Code for development within Flood Zone "A". A Flood Plain
Development Permit is required prior to issuance of any permit. Commercial
subdivisions may obtain a LOMR at their discretion.
55.
A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
10
format acceptable to the Department and include, but not be limited to, the following
criteria:
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities.
Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard
map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
Identity and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway
shall be shown on the improvement plan.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
56. Parcel Map 28627 shall be approved and recorded.
57.
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.
58.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards
and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
59.
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
60,
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· Department of Public Works
61.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
62.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
63.
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.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
11
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit
64.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
fees.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
65.
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.
66.
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 4 hour duratjon. The required fire flow may be adjusted dudng 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)
67.
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)
68.
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 902.2.2.3)
69.
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)
70.
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)
71.
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. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902)
72.
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)
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
12
73.
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)
74.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval pdor to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards,
After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2
and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 )
75.
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)
76.
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)
Special Conditions
77.
Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the
wildland-vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II~A)
78.
Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires
shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures
shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or
block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A)
OTHER AGENCIES
79.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 2, 1997, a copy of which
is attached.
80.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct transmittal dated November 10, 1997, a copy
of which is attached.
81.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water Districrs transmittal dated October 1, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
82.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in Eastern Information
Center's transmittal dated October 13, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
83.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans) transmittal dated October 20, 1997, a copy of which is
attached.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TpM).ciOc
13
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Signature
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
14
October 2, 1997
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTI-
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
AT'IN: John De Gange:
RE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28627: A PORTION OF THE TOWN OF TEMECULA
AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 15, PAGE 726 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, A.NTD A PORTION OF THE RANCH TEMECULA,
WHICH RANCHO WAS GRANTED BY PATENT DATED JANUARY 18, 1860, AND
RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY
IN LIBER 1 OF PATENTS AT PAGE 37 THEREOF, AND A PORTION OF THE PAUBA
LAND AND WATER COMPANY'S SUBDIVISION OF TEMECULA RANCHO AS SHOWN
BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 11, PAGE 507 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
(14 LOTS)
Dear Gentlemen:
1. The Department of Environmemal Health has reviewed Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627 and
recommends:
A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the water
company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be
submitted in triplicate, ~vith a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the
original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location
of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and joim specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of
the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects ~vith Div. 5, Part 1,
Chapter 7 of the California Heattb and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Title 1 I,
Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of
California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company
with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Parcel Map No.
28627 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water
District and that the water services, storage, and distribution system will be adequate to provide
water service to such Parcel Map". This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will
supply water to such Parcel Map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures for fire protection or
any other purpose. This certification shall be signed by a responsible official of the water
company. The plans must be submitted to the Citv of Temecula's Office to review at least TWO
WEEKS PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map.
John M. Fanning, Director
4065 County Circle Drive · Riverside, CA 92503 ,, Phone (909) 358-5316 * FAX (909) 358-5017
(Mailing Address - P.O. Box 7600 · Riverside. CA 92513-7600) p,,.,,a
City of Temecula Planning Dept.
Page Two
Attn.: John De Gange
October 2, I997
3. This subdivision has a statement from Eastern Municipal Water District agreeing to serve domestic
water to each and every lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial
arrangements are completed with ~he subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to
be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final map.
4. This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the
sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as
approved by the District, the City of Temecula and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along with the original drawing, to the
City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete
profiles, pipe and joim specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to
the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a
portion of the sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the
sewer district with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in
Parcel Map No. 28627 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern
Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the
anticipated wastes from the proposed Parcel Map". The plans must be submitted to the City of
Temecula's Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the
final map.
5. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely ~nalized PRIOR to recordation of
the final map.
6. It will be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be completely ~nalized PRIOR to the
recordation of the final map.
Sincerely,
Gregor Dellenbach, Environmental Health Specialist IV
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Ha:~ager-ChiefEngineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
November 10, 1997
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909~75-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
42125.1
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Attention: Mr. John De Gange
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: Parcel MaD 28627
PA 97-0307
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or
other land use cases in incorporated Cities. The District also does not plan
check City land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters
or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District
comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of
specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan
facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could
be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and
District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition,
information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed
the proposed project in detail and the following comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project
with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such
issue.
Tentative Parcel Map 28627 is a proposal for subdivision of 33.9 acres into
14 commercial lots along the future extension of Front Street, southeast of
the intersection of Highway 79 and Interstate 215.
This project is subject to severe flood hazard from Murrieta Creek. The
southwestern portion of the site is within the 100 year Zone AE flood plain
limits for Murrieta Creek as delineated on Panel No. 060742 O010A of the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued in conjunctqon with the National Flood
Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). The District's confluence study of Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek,
determined the lO0-year flood elevation to vary between 994.0 and 994.5.
All the elevations on the District maps are based on 1929 NGVD. The high
water mark during the flood of Janaury 1993 was 991.5. The pad elevations
shown on the drawing is above the elevation for the Districts confluence
study. Because of the extreme hazard posed by Murrieta Creek, the City
should consider not allowing development to proceed adjacent to the creek
until the ultimate improvement can be constructed. Property adjacent to the
creek and within the flood plain should be conditioned to construct the
required improvements or participate in a financing mechanism such as an
assessment district to ensure necessary improvements are constructed.
City of Temecula
Re: Parcel Map 28627
PA 97-0307
-2- November 10, 1997
If the City chooses to allow development to proceed, it should condition the
application to provide all studies, calculations, plans or other information
needed to mee~ FEMA requirements. This project is located within the limits
of the District's Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for which
drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid by cashier's
check or money order to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuance
of building or grading permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in
effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit.
Questions regarding this matter may be directed to me at 909/275-1214.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. HCKTBBTN
Senior Civil Engineer
SM:slj
John F, Hennigar
PhiHip L. Forbes
Kenneth C. Dealy
Best Best & Krieger LLP
October 1, 1997
Mr. John De Gange
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL MAP 28627, APN 922-210-047
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307
Dear Mr. De Gange:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD/District).
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.
The Distdct requests that all easements dedicated to the Rancho
California Water District be shown on the recorded parcel map.
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
971SB:eb194/F012/FCF
c: Laurie Willlares, Engineering Services Supervisor
CALIFORNIA
I-IISTORICAL
I~ESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
Eastern Information Center
Oel3artment of Anthro;~ology
University of California
Riversicle, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
October 13, 1997
John De Gange
City of Temecula
Planning Department
P. O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Cas~ No.: PA97-0307
Applicant: Jim Roberts (Margarita Canyon LLC)
Dear Mr. De Gange:
Please fred enclosed our comments for one project transmittal as requested by the Planning
Department. If you have any questions, please contact the F~a~tern Information Center at
(909) 787-5745 (please specify the case number and the date on which we submitted our
comments).
PA-0307 ............................................. ASAP
Sincerely,
Jennifer Bybee
Information Officer
Enclosure
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
Eastern Information Center
Department of Anthroi~ology
University of California
Riversicie, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CULTURAL RESOURC'E REVlF W
DATE: October 13, 1997
R,E: Case Transmitml Reference Designation: PA97-0307
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the C, alifomia Historical Resouret, s Information System have been
reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
__ The pro~ project area has not been surveyed for cultural re:o'az~:a mul contams or is adj¢ to known culmrsl ~sout~e(a). A
__ Basal upon axisling data the pt~ pf~j~et area has the po~ntial for contain~ cultural resources. A Phase I study is ~¢omm~nde~,
A Phase I cultural resource study (MF ! 99 I) identified on~ or mo~ culmttl resources.
__ Tile project af~a contains, or has the pombility of containing, cultural ~es. H~er, due ~ ~e ~m~ of ~e pmj~t ~ p~r
__ A Fnase I culmrni resmxree aaady (/vtF it
Due to ~e mrcha~olo&.ical ensidvity of the area. ~in~ du~n~ conau~ction should b¢ monitored by: profcuioaal mba~uloli,t
The submission era cultural reso~rec manageright report is re, commended following guidelin~. for Archaeological Resource Management
Reports prepared by the California Office of Histotlc P~s~rvadon, Prtservot~on Pla, nm~g B~ltr~ 4(a), Dee=mb~r 1989.
Records search and field survey
TeatinI [Evaluate resou,~e significance; propose midinfion measures for 'significant' sites.]
Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a ¢ombiration of the t~o.]
Monitor esnhmovin~ activities
COMMENTS: Two sites fall within this project area. Although one site has been partially tested, both sites should
be thoroughly tested to determine their significance before grading or construction occurs. Both sites are listed on
th~ Natiomd Register as part of the Mumeta Creek Archaeological District.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
STAff OF C~JFORN/A - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AHD HOUSING AGENCY
.' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231
SAN BERNA~DINO, CA 92402
TDD 19093383°4609
October 20, 1997
Mr. John I. DeGange
Project Planner
City of Temecula
Plarmmg Department
P. O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. DeGange:
08-Riv-15-3.1/3.7
Planning Application No. PA 97-0307: Tentative Parcel Map 28627
A recent review of this proposal by Caltrans' Traffic Engineers has made it clear this
proposal is not acceptable as presented on Tentative Parcel Map 28627, dated September 1997.
Their fmdings are as follows:
The proposed access to Front Street is too close to the existing 1-15 ramps to be
safe and provide acceptable traffic patterns on the city's street as well as the 1-15
ramps.
· It is in conflict with a plan by the city to upgrade Front Street and the ramps
terminating there as well as the city's proposed future "Western Bypass."
If this proposal is to go forward it must propose a different point of access to the
local road system. Perhaps a connection to the city's proposed "Western Bypass"
would be a more suitable location.
Please send the following to this office at the earliest opportunity:
· Grading Plans shall depict both existing and proposed contour lines.
· Drainage Plans shall depict all existing and proposed drainage facilities and
structures, including any State facilities.
· Site/Plot Plans.
· Landscaping Plans shall depict all proposed signage in addition to landscaping
layout.
Mr. John I. DeGange
October 20, 1997
Page 2
Street Improvement Plans -- shall depict all proposed improvements, including
signalization.
· Additional items of concern may be expressed upon receipt of the above requested
documents.
If you have any questions, please contact Cecil Karstensen at (909) 383-5922 or FAX
(909) 383-7934.
Very truly yours,
//~"~ ,.
/
Clfief, Office of Pdverside County
Transportation Planning
STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRAN, ATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8
464 W Fourth Street, 6th Floor MS 726
San Bernarr~ino, CA 92401-1400
PHONE (909) 383-6327
FAX (909) 383-6890
GRAY OAV[S. Governor
December 8, 1999
08-Riv-15~3.422
Mr. John De Gange
Planning Department
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecuta, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. De Gange:
EC 09
: By -:~,'
L
e_----.-
Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration, Case Number PA97-0307 for
Tentative Parcel Map 28627, Margarita Canyon LLC, Applicant
We have received the above noted document identifying environmental impacts and
mitigation measures associated with future development of Parcel Map 28627. We
agree that by requiring the described relocation of project access as a condition of
approval, impact to existing southbound Interstate 15 off/on ramps may be minimized.
However, potential impacts to TPM 28627 arising from a planned future modification of
dl
these ramps have not been directly assessed. Revision of parcel map access an ot
configuration must be coordinated with ramp modification plans currently being
prepared to ensure compatibility between both improvement projects.
Notification of pending development activity for TPM 28627 will be forwarded to other
District offices and staff. When revised development plans for TPM 28627 are
available, please forward copies to us for further review. Any remaining District
concerns will then be addressed and returned for continued parcel map application
processing.
If an exchange of preliminary project information is desired pdor to redesign of parcel
map access, a meeting to discuss all pertinent issues may be arranged here at District
Headquarters. We recommend that such a meeting be held to help identify and thus
avoid unforeseen conflicts arising with future site development. We also recommend
that all parties having an interest in this situation be invited to attend this meeting. This
would include project applicants or representatives as well as all City and affected
Caltrans staff.
Mr. John De Gange
December 8, 1999
Page 2
Thank you for providing us this notification of proposed project negative declaration. If
you have other questions or would like to schedule a meeting please contact Ms. Rosa
F. Clark at (909) 383-6908 for assistance.
Sincerely,
LINDA GRIMES, Chief
Office of Forecasting/IGR-CEQA Review
c: Frank Lehr, Freeway Operations
Patdck Hsu, Highway Operations ·
Tern Parks, Project Management
Khatil Saba, Project Management
Chdsty Connets, Design Team "J"
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL STUDY
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
13
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
General Plan Designation
Zoning
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 - Tentative Parcel Map 28627
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92569-9033
John De Gange, Project Planner
(909) 694-6400
Adjacent to Intenstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town
Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor
Margarita Canyon LLC
27740 Jefferson, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC)
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT)
A proposal to subdivide an approximately 37 acre parcel into 10
commercial lots and one open space lots (TPM 26627)
The project site is approximately 37 acres of vacant property, which
includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels.
The site is adjacent to Interstate 15 to the east, commercial areas to
the north across the future Western Bypass Corridor, a vacant open
space area across Temecula Creek to the south, and a vacant area
zoned Hillside Residential area to the west across Murrieta Creek.
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health
Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water
District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas
Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone
Company, and Riverside Transit Agency
Location Map
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2,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.
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources Population and Housing
Air Quality
Biological Resources Water
Cultural Resources
Geologic Problems
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Earlier Analyses
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 impact 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
John De Ganqe, Proiect Planner
Printed name
FOF
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
2
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
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?
Potentially
Significant
impact
Less Than
Significant W~th
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
NO
Impact
Comments:
1.a.
No Impact. The project site is adjacent to Interstate 15 and the ultimate development of the site will
not directly impact any scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where
there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. As a
consequence no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project or the future
development of the site.
1.b.
No Impact. There are no designated scenic resources in the vicinity of the project site. The project
site includes a portion of the Murrieta Creek Channel, however, the project as proposed will preserve
the channel and all future development will not directly impact the channel. There are no scenic
resources within the project site within the view of a scenic highway. As a consequence, no significant
impact to scenic resources will result from the proposed project or the future development of the site.
1.C,
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is approximately 37 acres of
vacant property, which includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A majority of
the site is composed of disturbed non-native grassland (30 acres). The remaining portion of the site is
comprised of Riparian Woodland (six acres) and Riversidian Sage Scrub plant communities (one
acre). The portion of the site, which consists of drainage channels, could potentially have significant
visual character given the presence of Riparian Woodland vegetation. The ultimate complete
development of all 37 acres of the property would significantly degrade the visual character and quality
of the site and surrounding properties. As mitigation, the project proposes to preserve the entire six
acres of Riparian Woodland and one half acre of the one acre portion of the Riversidian Sage Scrub.
For the one half acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub that will be developed, the project proponent will be
required to purchase one half acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub off-site in compliance with the
requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Communities Conservation
Program (NCCP) [based on the Evaluation Logic Flow Chart contained in Attachment "A" of the
Biological Impact Report]. After mitigation, any potential impacts could be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
1.d.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Though this project only represents a
subdivision of the property into commercial lots, the ultimate buildout on the property will have a
potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as
all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to
impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with
Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). After mitigation, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~Ct~GA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significantwith Lass Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
~rllpact Incorporated impact Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Comments:
2a.,2c. No Impact. The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic past has not
ever formerly been used for agricultural purposes, In addition this property is not considered prime or
unique of Farmland of statewide importance pursuant the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency or the City of Temecula's General Plan. In addition, the project
wilt not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland
to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to this issue.
2b.
No Impact. The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula,
and the site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. As a consequence there is no impact
related to this issue.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2,doc
4
3. 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:
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?
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
3.a,
Less Than Significant Impact, The proposed project represents only a subdivision of vacant property
into commercial lots; however, the analysis within this document has evaluated the potential
development of the site with commercial uses. The project as proposed will comply with State and
national ambient air quality standards. Although the project exceeds the air quality management
policies in the current Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and emissions thresholds established in
South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993),
the City of Temecula's General Plan EIR has addressed development of the site and proposed
adequate mitigation for any impacts. The analysis provided in 3b. below, discusses the project's
compliance with the AQMP. Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans
will result from the proposed project
3.b.
Less Than Significant Impact. This project represents only a subdivision of vacant property into
commercial lots; however, this analysis has evaluated the potential development of the site with
commercial uses. The project proposes to provide for 12.61 net acres of developable land. Pursuant
to the City of Temecula's Development Code this site can ultimately be developed with 164,788
square feet of commercial uses based on a target Floor Area Ratio of 0.30. Though this figure
exceeds the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993) threshold for impacts associated
with commercial development, this figure is consistent with target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) anticipated
within the City's General Plan. The General Plan established target floor area ratios within various
land uses in order to determine the intensity of uses and the impacts upon the environment. The
General Plan EIR evaluates the impacts of development at the target FAR. The analysis conducted
for this project assumes that the ultimate development of the site will be at the target FAR for the
Highway/'l'ourist zoning district. It is anticipated that the development of the site will be less than the
densities anticipated by the General Plan and analyzed within the General Plan EIR. The General
Plan EIR has established mitigation measures for impacts associated with air quality through The
General Plan's policies and guidelines. Consequently a less than significant impact is anticipated as a
result of this project.
R:\CEQA~307PA97 - EIS2.doc
5
3.c.
3.d.
3.8.
Less Than Significant ImpacL As discussed in item b. above, though the project when ultimately
developed, will exceed the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993) thresholds for
impacts associated with commercial development, the City of Temecula's General Plan EIR has
addressed the impacts to air quality for a project on this site and established appropriate mitigation
measures. Therefore, all potential impacts resulting from cumulative net increases of any criteria
pollutants have been addressed within the policies and guidelines of the City of Temecula's EIR and
mitigated for. As a consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, There are no significant
pollutants in proximity to the project nor is it anticipated that the project will generate pollutants, No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project,
No Impact. Though this project only represents a subdivision of the property into commercial lots, the
ultimate buildout on the property may create objectionable odors during the construction phase of the
project. These impacts, however, will be short in duration and are not considered to be significant.
Consequently no impacts would result from this project,
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information 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 federally 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
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
6
Comments:
4.a.,b.,d.
Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is approximately 37 acres of
vacant property, which includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A majority of
the site is composed of disturbed non-native grassland (30 acres). The remaining portion of the site is
comprised of Riparian Woodland (six acres) and Riversidian Sage Scrub plant communities (one
acre).
A biological impact report for the project site was prepared by Principe and Associates in December of
1997. This study reveals that the ultimate development of the proposed project site will result in the
removal of all 30 acres of onsite Non-Native Grassland, the removal of approximately 0,5 acres of the
total Riversidian Sage Scrub onsite, and the preservation of the entire six acres of Riparian Woodland
within the boundaries of the project site. The study determined that the habitat within the Non-Native
Grassland, however is not considered to be a significant biological resource and the loss of this habitat
is not considered to be significant,
Development of the project site will also result in the removal of 0.5 acres of the one-acre total of
Riversidian Sage Scrub that is considered a Sensitive Natural Plant Community, The study
determined that based on the Evaluation Logic Flow Chart included within the Southern California
Coastal Sage Scrub, Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP), Conservation Guidelines
(Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Nov. 1993), the onsite Rivereidian Sage Scrub has a lower potential
value for long-term conservation given the fact that it is unoccupied by the Coastal California
Gnatcatcher, and given that it is a small isolated patch with no linkage to any other similar habitat.
The project site also contains six acres of Riparian Woodlands and jurisdictional wetlands. As
proposed; however, the project preserves almost the entire area with exception of 0.07 acres of area
associated with a small unnamed drainage channel which bisects the site and flows into Murrieta
Creek as identified within a Wetlands Delineation study for the project site was conducted by LSA
Associates. For this small area the applicant will be required to mitigate through obtaining a Section
404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water
Act and a Section 1601 Streambed alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and
Game.
As mitigation for potential impacts created by the proposed project to the 30 acres of Non-Native
Grassland and the one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub the applicant shall be conditioned to: 1) comply
with the requirements established in the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Long-term Habitat Conservation
Plan, primarily through the payment of a mitigation fee; 2) preserve the 0,5 acre portion of Riversidian
Sage Scrub on site and mitigate the loss of the other 0.5 acres with the purchase of off-site habitat at a
ratio of 1:1 as deemed appropriate by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Calif. Dept. of Fish
and Game in compliance with the interim goals established within the NCCP Program; 3) preserve the
entire six acres of Riparian Woodlands habitat; 4) comply with the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service
protocol and obtain clearance for the Endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly by conducting
additional field surveys prior to the issuance of grading permits to determine if the host plant for the
species are present in which case an adult survey would be required; 5) design future development
plans so that surface waters and spills drain away from Murrieta and Temecula Creeks in order to
avoid runoff contamination; 6) install utility extensions underground; 7) revegetate all graded and
disturbed areas near the channels with native tree and plant species in order to reduce impacts from
the project; 7) the applicant shall be required to prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to insure project
compliance to the mitigation measures contained in this document.
With the implementation of the above mentioned mitigation measures and associated conditions of
approval for this project, the impacts associated with project would be reduced to less than significant.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 o EIS2.doc
7
4,c.
4.e.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. In October of 1998 a Wetlands Delineation
study for the project site was conducted by LSA Associates. The study determined that approximately
5.62 acres of the site met the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers criteria for jurisdictional wetlands and
5.93 acres fell within the jurisdiction of the Calif. Department of Fish and Game, Of the acreage
delineated as jurisdictional wetlands a 0.07-acre portion of the site is proposed to be filled which will
result in the loss of wetlands and riparian habitat. The lost wetlands area will be from a small-
unnamed drainage channel which runs through the center of the project and flows into Murrieta Creek.
The wetlands areas within Murdeta and Temecula Creeks will be unaffected.
The loss of the wetlands/jurisdiction waters will require the project proponent to obtain a 404 Permit
from the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and a
Section 1601 Streambed alteration permit administered by the California Department of Fish and
Game. As mitigation for the lost wetlands the applicant will be required to obtain the necessary
permits from the above referenced agencies prior to the issuance of grading permits. After mitigation,
this project would have a less than significant impact,
No Impact. The City of Temecula does not have any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, therefore there is no impact associated with this project relative to this issue.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to
pay a mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. In addition, the
subject site contains approximately one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub that places the property within
the jurisdiction of the NCCP program. The project will be conditioned to comply with all requirements
of the NCCP program or develop their own habitat plan under the provisions of the NCCP. As a
consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
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?
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
5,a.
No Impact. Based on a previously conducted Phase I cultural resource study it has been determined
that there are no known historical resources on site, which the project would impact. As a
consequence no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.b.d.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan and an earlier
Archaeological Investigation conducted by the Archaeological Research Unit at the University of
California at Riverside in December of 1988 identifies a sensitive archaeological area along Murrieta
Creek which may extend into the subject site. Due to the potential for deposits in the area and at the
recommendation of the UCR Eastern Information Center (within correspondence dated October 13,
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
5.c.
1997), future development of the proposed site will be required to conduct a Phase II archeological
investigation on site prior to the approval any development project. It is anticipated that when future
development is proposed on the site and a Phase II archaeological study is conducted that this study
would propose mitigation to address any significant impacts that may occur. As a consequence a less
than significant impact is anticipated.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan identifies that the
area could potentially be within a highly sensitive paleontological area. Due to the potential for
deposits in the area, future development of the proposed site will be conditioned to have an on site-
monitor dudng grading operations. The potential for future significant impacts will be determined and
fully mitigated when future development proposals are considered. As a consequence, a less than
significant impact is anticipated.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
b.
O.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the dsk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault. as delineated on
the most recent AIquist-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 (1994), 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?
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
No Impact. 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,
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
9
6.a.ii, iv,b., and d.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. There may be a potentially significant
impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, soil erosion, or expansive soils.. Although, there
are no known fault hazard zones on the property, 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 dudn9 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, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
6.c.,a.iii
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The ultimate development of the site
may have a significant impact on people involving liquefaction and subsidence or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Potential impacts could be mitigated by compliance with
State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone development criteria and construction in
accordance with the Uniform Building Code standards. A soils report shall be required as part of the
development and shall contained recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to
mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure
(including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of
approval for development projects at the site. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils.
After mitigation measures are performed, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this
project.
6.e.
No Impact. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The ultimate
development of the site will be required to hook up to the existing public sewer system. Therefore, no
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
10
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Crete 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
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
No
impact
Comments:
7.a,
No Impact. Though this project only represents a subdivision of the property into commercial lots, the
ultimate buildout of the property will involve construction. Construction associated with the
development of the property will involve the use of chemical agents, solvents, paints and other
hazardous materials that are associated with construction activities. The amount of these chemicals
present during construction, however, is limited and is not considered a significant hazard. As a
consequence, no significant impact is expected form the routine use and disposal of these materials.
7.b.
No Impact. The future development of the site will be commercial uses. It is anticipated that the
future uses within the project site will not store or house large quantities of hazardous material that
would create 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. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
11
7.c.
7.d.
7.e. ,f.
7.g.
7.h.
No Impact. Future development of the project site will be with commercial uses. This site is not within
one-quader mile of an existing or proposed school. The operation of construction equipment and
machinery during the development of this site may emit some hazardous emissions and or handle
some hazardous material. However, these emissions and material should be of limited quantities over
a shod duration of time. Since this project site in not within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school, and will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste, no impacts are
anticipated.
No Impact. This project site is not nor is it located near a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
No Impact. The project site is not located within an airpod land use plan or within two miles of a
public or private airstrip. No impact upon airpod uses will result from this proposal.
No Impact. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede
emergency response or evacuation plans, No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. This project site is adjacent to 1-15 to the east and Murrieta Creek to the west. Though
the site is located in the vicinity of large open space areas, it is not located in a high fire area. As a
consequence no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
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)?
Less Than
Potentially SigmficantWith Less Than
Significant Mit~gatmn S~gnificant NO
impact Incorporated Impact Irnpac~
c. 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 that 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?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a lO0-year flood hazard area as
h. .,/
i. ,/
mapped 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 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?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ,/'
Comments:
8.a. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project will not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The subdivision, and subsequent development,
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. With mitigation a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.f. No Impact. 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
R:\CEQA%307PA97 - EIS2.doc
8.c.d.
8.e.
8.g.
8.h.i.
local groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on 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. Further, construction on
the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume.
No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Less Than Significant Impact. 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 hardscape and driveways. While
absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site
design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff
that is created. A less than significant impact is associated with this project.
Less Than Significant ImpacL Due to the small scale of the proposed subdivision, and ultimately the
future commercial 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 project will be conditioned to accommodate the drainage
created as a result of the subject site. In addition, the project will be conditioned so that the drainage
will not impact surrounding properties. A less than significant impact is associated with this project.
No IrnpacL This project represents a subdivision of property into commercial parcels. Since no
residential property is effected, no impact is associated with this project.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project may expose people or
property to water related hazards such as flooding. According to the Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, the project site is in area that is subject to severe flood hazard from
Murrieta Creek. Further, the site is located within the limits of the 100-year (Zone AE)
floodplain/floodway as delineated on Panel No, 060742 0010B of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
issued in conjunction with the National Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In its current configuration; however, the project is
designed with all pads for future development being elevated above the floodway/floodplain. This
project and all future development of the site will be conditioned so that the developer will be required
to file a floodplain development permit with the appropriate approvals from the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District if any portion of the site is to be developed within the
floodplain. In addition, future development will be conditioned to pay a mitigation charge to the
Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Drainage Plan.
In addition, 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. With the incorporation of mitigation measures a less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. The project site will not be subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow as these
events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQA%307PA97 - EIS2.doc
14
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
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?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impac~
Comments:
9a.,b.
No Impact. The subject site is vacant and is bordered by Murrieta Creek on the west and Interstate
15 on the east. These two features provide an existing physical barrier to the surrounding properties
to the east and west. The property to the north is comprised primarily of existing commercial uses.
The properties to the west and south are vacant and zoned Open Space. Therefore, the proposed
subdivision of this property 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). As a consequence no impact is associated with this
project.
9.c.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to
pay a mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. In addition,
according to a biological study conducted by Principe and Associates in December of 1997 the subject
site contains approximately one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub that places the property within the
jurisdiction of the NCCP program. The project will be conditioned to comply with the NCCP program
or develop their own habitat conservation plan under the provisions of the NCCP pro9ram. As a
consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated.
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
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?
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
impact incorporated Impact Impact
R:\CEOA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
Comments:
10.a.b. No impact. The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources or 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. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Issues and Supporting 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?
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
11.a.
Less Than Significant Impact. This project site is designated for commercial development. The site
is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during
construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. However, long-term
noise generated by this project would be within the limits of the General Plan standards for commercial
development. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11.b.
No Impacts. Development of the project site will be with commercial uses. It is anticipated that the
uses conducted on site will not generate activities that would expose persons to or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No impacts are anticipated.
11.c.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will ultimately result in the development of the site with
commercial uses that will create noise levels greater than that currently emanating from the vacant
land. However, those noises will not be substantial or constant and are not anticipated to create a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
16
11.d.
11.e.f.
without the project. Therefore, only less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Less Than Significant Impact. 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 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. A less than significant impact would be anticipated.
No Impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore,
people residing in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an
airport. Consequently no impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information 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,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
12.a.
No ImpacL 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 Highway/Tourist
Commercial (HT). The proposed subdivision will eventually result in the development of commercial
uses, which will cause some people to relocate to, or within the Temecula area. However, due to its
limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth beyond what is projected in the City's General Plan.
No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.b.c. No Impact. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing as the site
is vacant property zoned Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT). Therefore, the project will neither
displace housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
13.
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:
Less Than
Potentially Significantwith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impacl Impact
a.
Issues and Supporting 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?
b. Fire protection? ,/
c. Police protection? ,/'
d. Schools? ,/
e. Parks? ,/
f. Other public facilities? ,/'
Comments:
13.a.,b.,c.,e.,f.
Less Than Significant Impact. 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 through the
City's Development Impact Fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. Due
to the project's relative small scale, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
13.d.
Less Than SignificantImpact, 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.
R:~CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
S~gn~hcant Mitigation Significant No
impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. 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?
b. 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?
Comments:
14.a.b. Less Than Significant ImpacL The project will have a less than significant impact in the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant
numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an
incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or
opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. 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?
b. 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)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? ,/'
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ,/'
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ,f
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks?
19
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
Comments:
15.a.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development of tie project and
its proposed access on the south side of Highway 79 SouthNVestem Bypass at Front Street, will cause
a substantial increase in traffic and could have potential for significant impact at tiis intersection and
the I-15 soutibound ramps.
Due to the substandard and limited spacing between tie intersection of Old Town Front Street and 1-
15 soutibound ramp signal (160 feet) and the high traffic volumes generated by tie project (7,909
AD'r), congestion and unsafe vehicular movements could be expected at intersections in tie vicinity of
the project. There is a particular concam witi tie west bound left turn movement into tie site. Traffic
attempting to enter tie project could potentially back up to tie soutibound 1-15 ramp signal.
AItiough tie traffic study prepared by the applicants consultant and its subsequent revisions indicate
acceptable intedm operation conditions, staff believes tiat tie site access as proposed, will adversely
impact the traffic flow in the vicinity of tie project at tie 1-15 interchange.
The map will be developed in two phases. The properties frenting tie Westam Bypass Corridor (Lots
1 and 12) are considered Phase I, and all tie remaining parcels are Phase II. Development of the lots
in Phase II shall not be allowed for a minimum of one year and the development of acceptable traffic
flow standards. Witiin this one-year pedod tie applicant and tie City shall work to establish a
Development Agreement. The Development Agreement will apply the conditions under which tie lots
in Phase II will be developed and will address any right-of-way needs with respect to any future
interchange improvements.
Though tie applicant's proposed access point will initially be allowed, tie applicant will provide an
access easement approximately 250 feet south of the location of applicant's proposed access. This
easement would become tie access road into tie project site if traffic impacts at tiis intersection
warrant it at some future time when the site is developed.
Traffic thresholds will be developed for traffic impacts tiat all future Phase II projects will be reviewed
against. If tie traffic generated by the proposed projects in Phase II exceeds tie aggregate
thresholds, tiat padicular scope of development will be prohibited.
15.b. Less Than Significant Impact W'rth Mitigation Incorporated. This project could potentially
cumulatively exceed tie level of service standard (LOS "E") established within tie Count~s
Congestion Management Plan (CMP). State Highway 79(S), and Interstate 15 are roads which are
within tie County's CMP. Though tie traffic study conducted by tie applicant's traffic engineer states
otherwise, City staff has determined tiat tiis project will be responsible for a significant increase in
traffic volumes. This increase in traffic volumes coupled witi tie close spacing between the
intersection at tie extension of Old Town Front Street and Western Bypass Corridor witi tie
soutibound on and off ramps for 1-15. may lead to congestion and gridlock on State Highway 79(S)
and could potentially cause southbound traffic on 1-15 to back up. As a consequence a potentially
significant impact may result from this project.
If tie site access is ralocated approximately 250 feet to the west of tie current proposed alignment, a
greater distance for vehicle merging will be provided. This will be particularly benefidal to vehicles
making a left turn into tie site from the souti bound 1-15 off ramp. Relocating the access to the
proposed location west of the appiicant's current proposed location will increase the merging distance
from 160 feet to approximately 400 feet. This will reduce tie project's impact on Highway 79(S)/
Western Bypass Corridor. The project will be conditioned to modify tie project's access to a location
250 feet from the current proposed alignment. With the incorporation of this condition is has been
determined tiat after mitigation is incorporated this project will have a less tian significant impact.
R:~CEQALt07PA97 - EIS2.doc
20
15.c.
15.d.
15.e.
15.f.
15.g.
No Impact Neither the subdivision of the project site nor the future development of this property will
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. This site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight
oveday distdct and therefore will have no impact on the project.
Less Than Significant Impact VVTth Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project could
substantially increase hazards due the location of the intersection of the extension of Old Town Front
Street and the Western Bypass Corridor in terms of its spacing with the southbound on and off ramps
for 1-15. After reviewing the traffic study and subsequent revisions prepared by the applicanrs
consultant, City staff has determined that the project will generate significant traffic volumes. These
increased traffic volumes coupled with the close sparing between the intersection at the extension of
Old Town Front Street and Westam Bypass Corddor with the southbound on and off ramps for 1-15,
may lead to significant traffic congestion which could result in traffic backing up on lanes on the south
bound 1-15.
The map will be developed in two phases. The properties fronting the Westam Bypass Corddor (Lots
I and 12) are considered Phase I, and all the remaining parcels are Phase II. Development of the iota
in Phase II shall not be allowed for a minimum of one year and the development of acceptable traffic
flow standards. Within this one-year pedod the applicant and the City shall work to establish a
Development Agreement. The Development Agreement will apply the conditions under which the lots
in Phase II will be developed and will address any right-of-way needs with rasped to any future
interchange improvements.
Though the applicant's proposed access point will initially be allowed, the applicant will provide an
access easement approximately 250 feet south of the location of applicanrs proposed access. This
easement would become the access road into the project site if traffic impacts at this intersection
warrant it at some future time when the site is developed.
Traffic thresholds will be developed for traffic impacts that all future Phase II projects will be reviewed
against. if the traffic generated by the proposed projects in Phase II exceeds the aggregate
thresholds, that particular scope of development will be prohibited.
Less Than Significant Impact This project is a subdivision of vacant property into commercial lots
and as a consequence it is difficult to determine what the ultimate impacts on emergency access will
be at this time. All subsequent development projects on parcels within this project will be evaluated to
determine the impacts to emergency access. Future development of the site will be conditioned to
meet all applicable standards in place at the time of development. Emergency access to nearby uses
will not be affected by this project given that the project is generafly surrounded by undevelopable
properties. As a consequence the project will have a less than significant impact.
No Impact This project represents a subdivision of vacant land into commercial lots, no specific
development is being proposed at this time. Consequently it is not possible to determine specific
parking requirements for the site; however, any subsequent development of the proposed parcels will
be required to comply with the City's Development Code parking requirements for commercial uses.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Less Than Significant Impact The project as proposed does not currently conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. When future development is
proposed for the site, individual projects will be reviewed to determine if the provision of alternative
transportation opportunities will be appropdata. As a consequence, a less than significant impact is
anticipated.
R:%CEQAL~OTPA97 - EIS2,doc
21
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
:: Issues and Supporting Information Sources ~ h=~=,.,~ . ~.,.~t .
a. ' Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ,/
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. 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
environmental effects?
c. 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?
d, Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ,/'
project from existing entitlemerits and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. 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?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ,/'
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
16.a.,b., e.
No Impact. 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. No significant impacts are anticipated.
16.c.
No Impact, The project will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities. The
development of the tract will require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities
on site that will connect to the existing system currently in place along Old Town Front Street at the
northem end of the site. The design of the existing system is sufficient handle this project and will not
require the expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects. Drainage fees are required by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District to reimburse the county for the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage
Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated.
R:~CEQAt307PA97 - EIS2.doc
22
16.d.
16.f.g.
No ImpacL 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 RCVVD 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.
Less Than Significant Impacf 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 Sourca Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Issues and Suppo_rting Information Sources ..
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 pedods 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:
17.a.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The ultimate development of the site has
potential to impact habitat for fish or wildlife species. The project proposes to disturb 0.5 acres of
Riversidian Sage Scrub, however, if the project were approved mitigation measures would be included
to reduce this to a less than significant impact. In addition, the project proposes to disturb 0.07 acres
of wetlands. If approved the project would be conditioned to mitigate this impact by obtaining a
Section 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and a Section 1601 Permit from the Calif. Dept.
of Fish and Game. A less than significant impact would result if mitigation measures are incorporated.
R:\CEQA%307PA97 - EIS2,doc
23
17.b.
17.c.
Less Than Significant Vlrrth Mitigation Incorporated. The project could have a potentially
significant impact with respect to traffic impacts. City staff has determined that the project could
potentially generate increased traffic volumes, which could cumulatively effect traffic in the vicinity of
the project.
The map will be developed in two phases. The properties frontlng the Westem Bypass Corridor (Lots
I and 12) are considered Phase I, and all the remaining parcels are Phase II. Development of the lots
in Phase II shall not be allowed for a minimum of one year and the development of acceptable traffic
flow standards. Within this one-year pedod the applicant and the City shall work to establish a
Development Agreement. The Development Agreement will apply the conditions under which the lots
in Phase II will be developed and' will address any right-of-way needs with respect to any future
interchange improvements.
Though the applicant's proposed access point will initially be allowed, the applicant will provide an
access easement approximately 250 feet south of the location of applicant's proposed access, This
easement would become the access road into the project site if traffic impacts at this intersection
warrant it at some future time when the site is developed.
Traffic thresholds will be developed for traffic impacts that all future Phase II projects will be reviewed
against. If the traffic generated by the proposed projects in Phase II exceeds the aggregate
thresholds, that particular scope of development will be prohibited.
No Impact. This project and the future development of the site will not have environmental effects
that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The subdivision
is designed and will be developed consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. If
approved, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Eadier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an eedier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
C,
Eadier analyses used. Identify eadier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the eadier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
18.a.
An eadier Environmental Initial Study was conducted for this project and circulated on September 30,
1999. The proposed determination of this study was that an Environmental Impact Report would be
required for this project due to there being potentially significant impacts associated with the project.
The analysis in this study provides mitigation for these potentially significant impacts.
A number of studies that were conducted for a previous subdivision (Tentative Parcel Map 23987)
which included this property. These studies include: "A Reevaluation of Archaeological Sites
Recorded on TPM 23987" prepared by The Archaeological Research Unit at UCR (December 1988);
A Biological Assessment conducted by Tierra Madre Consultants (October 1988); A Stephens
Kangaroo Rat Study conducted by Friesen Biological Surveys for TPM 19851 (undated); two
Geotechnical Investigations conducted by Schaefer Dixon Associates (Apdl 1988 and February 1989),
R:%CEQA~307PA97 - EIS2.doc
24
With the exception of the archeologicel study, none of these studies were used in this analysis due to
their age. Reference was only bdefly made to this document. The City's General Plan and Final
Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study.
18. b. There were no eadier impacts which affected this project.
18.c.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared has been prepared for this project and is attached
to this document.
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management Distdct CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
The City of Temecula Development Code.
Focused Traffic Analysis for TPM 28627 prepared by RKJK & Associated - May 1999 (with
subsequent amendments)
Biologicel Impact Report for TPM 28627 prepared by Pdncipe & Associates - December 1997
Delineation of Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters for TPM 28627 prepared by LSA Associates -
October 1998
A Reevaluation of Archaeological Sites Recorded on TPM 23987 prepared by The Archaeological
Research Unit at UCR (December 1988)
R:\CEQA~307PA97 * EIS2,doc
25
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No, PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627)
Aesthetics
General Impact:
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings.
Mitigation Measure:
Preserve the entire six acres of Riparian Woodland and one half
acre of the one acre portion of the Riversidian Sage Scrub. For
the one half acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub that will be
developed, the project proponent will be required to purchase one
half acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub off-site or a greater amount as
required by State and Federal wildlife agencies in compliance with
the requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game's
Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) [based on
the Evaluation Logic Flow Chart contained in Attachment "A" of
the Biological Impact Report prepared for the project].
Specific Process:
Receive approval for the purchase of off-site property from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of
Fish and Game. Submit a mitigation plan to the Planning
Department which details how the applicant has set aside
sensitive areas and has met the requirements of the U,S Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Dept. of Fish and Game for the
off-site purchase of off-site property to compensate for the taking
of any Riversidian Sage Scrub,
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party
Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No.
655.
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department
approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
:Building and Safety Department.
fOr
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMp.dOC
1
BioloGical Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
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 Stephen's Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per gross acre to mitigate the regional impacts on
the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat caused by urbanization.
Pdor to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
General Impact:
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.
Mitigation Measure:
Preserve the entire 6 acres of Riparian Woodland on-site. Avoid
runoff contamination to Murrieta and Temecula Creeks, install
utility extensions underground, and revegetate all graded and
disturbed areas near the channels with native tree and plant
species.
Specific Process:
Development of the site shall preserve the entire 6 acres of
Riparian Woodlands on site. No grading or clearing shall occur in
this area. Development of the site shall be designed so that all
utility extensions are underground and that surface water run off
and spillage drains away from Murrieta and Temecula Creeks.
This area shall be fenced off prior to any grading activities to
prevent any disturbances to wetland or vegetation areas. The
project will be conditioned to revegetate all graded and disturbed
areas near the channels with native tree and plant species.
Prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to insure project compliance
to the mitigation measures contained in this document.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any site development
modification, which ever occurs first.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
General Impact:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Mitigation Measure:
Requirement of biologic survey prior to the issuance of a grading
permit or at the time of the submittal of a development proposal
for the site (which ever occurs first).
Specific Process:
At the time of the submittal of a development proposal or the
submittal of a grading plan for the project site the applicant shall
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMP.dOC
2
submit a biological survey at the appropriate time of the year to
determine if the California Gnatcatcher, the Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly or any other endangered or threatened species inhabit
the site. This biological survey shall propose appropriate
mitigation for development of the site. This biologicaf survey shall
submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game for review and approval. Prepare a
Biological Mitigation Plan to insure project compliance to the
mitigation measures contained in this document.
Mitigation Milestone:
Upon submittal of a development proposal or prior to the issuance
of a grading permit (which ever comes first).
Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department
General Impact:
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, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means
Mitigation Measure:
Preserve the entire amount of Ripadan Woodlands habitat on site.
Mitigate for any lost jurisdictional wetlands under the terms of a
404 Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a 1601
Permit from the California Department of Fish and Game.
Specific Process:
Obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a
1601 Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department
of Fish and Game. Prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to insure
project compliance to the mitigation measures contained in this
document.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
Cultural Resources
General Impact:
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique archeological resoume or
site or unique geologic feature.
Mitigation Measure:
An earlier Archaeological Investigation conducted by the
Archaeological Research Unit at the University of California at
Riverside in December of 1988 identified a sensitive
archaeological area along Murrieta Creek which may extend into
the subject site. Due to the potential for deposits in the area and
at the recommendation of the UCR Eastern Information Center
(within correspondence dated October 13, 1997), future
development of the proposed site will be required to conduct a
Phase II archeological investigation on site prior to the approval
any development project.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMP.doc
3
Specific Process:
When future development is proposed on the site a Phase II
archaeological study shall be conducted. This study shall
establish appropriate mitigation to address any significant impacts
that may occur.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or the submittal of a
subsequent development application, which ever occurs first.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Public Works Department and Planning Department.
General Impact:
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature.
Mitigation Measure:
The General Plan identifies that the area could potentially be
within a highly sensitive paleontological area. Due to the potential
for deposits in the area, future development of the proposed site
will be conditioned to have an on site-monitor during grading
operations. The potential for future significant impacts will be
determined and fully mitigated when future development
proposals are considered.
Specific Process:
Place a condition on this project that grading will cease if cultural
resources are encountered during grading.
Mitigation Milestone:
During grading operations.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Public Works Department and Planning Department.
GeoloGic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
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 building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
General Impact: Expose people to risks to life or property due to expansive soils.
Mitigation Measure: Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the
Uniform Building Code.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMp.doc
4
Specific Process: Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department
for approval.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
Hvdrologv
General Impact:
The project will violate water quality or waste discharge
requirements
Mitigation Measure:
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.
Specific Process:
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and
approval.
Mitigation Milestone:
Pdor to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
General Impact:
The project will substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site
Mitigation Measure:
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,
Specific Process:
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and
approval.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
General Impact:
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would
impede or redirect flood flows.
Mitigation Measure:
The applicant shall obtain a floodplain development permit to
ensure all finished floors are a minimum of one (1) foot above the
base flood elevation.
Specific Process: Submit a floodplain development permit to the Public Works
Department for approval,
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMP,dOC
5
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works.
TransDortationlCirculation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and
traffic impacts.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
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.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Increase in vehicle trips and traffic congestion whereby effecting
the Level of Service (LOS) for intersections in the vicinity and
increasing hazards associated with increased trips and traffic
congestion.
Mitigation Measure:
The project has been conditioned to relocate the site's access
approximately 250 feet to the west of the current proposed access
location, which effectively eliminates the extension of Old Town
Front Street to the south of Highway 7g(S)/Western Bypass
Corridor.
Specific Process:
Redesign the map with the access into the project shifted to a
location approximately 250 feet from the current proposed
alignment and receive the appropriate approvals from the Public
Works and Planning Departments.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to recordation of a final map.
F:\DEPTS~PLANNING\CEQA%307pa97.MMP,doc
6
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Planning Department
Noise
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
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,
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building & Safety Department and Department of Public Works.
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified
School District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified
School District.
General Impact:
A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public
facilities, including roads.
Mitigation Measure:
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements,
traffic impacts, and public facilities.
Specific Process:
Payment of the Public Facilities Development impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
ReSponsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA%307pa97.MMp.doc
7
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.dOC
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28627)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 8, 1999
VICINITY MAP
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B-ZONING MAP DESIGNATION-HT(HIGHWAY/TOURIST COMMERCIAL)/
OS-C(CONSERVATION)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS (Open Space)
CASE NO. - PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28627)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 8, 1999
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pA97.PC2.doc
16
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
STAFF REPORT FROM
NOVEMBER 3, 1999
R:xSTAFFRFI~07pa97pcmem4 .doc
20
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commi ,~
Debbie UbnosZ~,~lanning Manager
November 3, 1999
Planning Application PA 97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) - Margarita
Canyon, located adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old
Town Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/Westem Bypass
Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner
Recommendation: Continuance to December 1, 1999
At the October 20, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting the applicant requested that this item be
continued to this meeting. Since that time, staff has met with the applicant and the applicant's
representatives to discuss the outstanding traffic issues which prevent staff from recommending
approval for the project.
At this time, staff is currently analyzing alternatives for the current proposal which could potentially
mitigate the concems staff has with the project. As a consequence staff is asking for an additional
30 days to complete this analysis. It is felt that a continuance to the December 1, 1999 meeting
would allow staff the necessary time to evaluate these alternatives.
For background and an analysis of the project to this point, a copy of the staff report prepared for
the October 20th meeting is being included for your review.
l~:~DEPTS~aI.,ANN]NG~'r~0?PA97PCME~,doc
1
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
STAFF REPORT FROM
OCTOBER 20, 1999
R:XSTAFFRPT~307pt~97pcmem4.do~
21
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
ORIGINAL
October 20, 1999
Planning Application No. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
MAKE a determination based on the Findings contained within the Initial
Study prepared for this project that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
be prepared in order to address the potentially significant impacts identified
within the analysis of this Initial Study;
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- denying Planning Application No. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627), based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the staff report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Margarita Canyon LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Lohr & Associates/Markham and Associates
PROPOSAL:
To subdivide an approximately 37 acre parcel into 10 commercial lots
and one open space lot (TPM 28627).
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town
Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor
HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS (Open Space)
EXISTING ZONING:
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS-C (Conservation)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
OS-C (Conservation)/HR (Hillside Residential)
Interstate 15
OS-C (Conservation)/HR (Hillside Residential)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North: Gas Station/Mini-Mart
South: Vacant
R:\STAFFRPT%307PA97.PC,doc
1
East: 1-15, Commercial retail center, apartments, single-family
residences
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Acreage for the Project (Gross)
Total Acreage for the Project (Net)
Number of Lots
Number of Open Space Lots
Average Lot Size (gross)
Average Lot Size (net)
Minimum Lot Size
36.8 acres
12.61 acres
10
1 (10.48 acres )
2.46 acres
1.26 acres
1.04 acres (gross)
0.51 acres (net)
BACKGROUND
An application for this project was formally submitted on September 8, 1997. A Development
Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on October 9, 1997, with written comments being
provided shortly after. From the initial DRC meeting, staff has requested that the applicant supply
various items and specified studies to evaluate the impacts associated with the project. The
applicant has supplied all the items which have been requested since the time the application was
submitted; however, it is staffs determination that the traffic study prepared by the applicant's traffic
consultant still inadequately addresses the traffic impacts generated by the project and has not
proposed adequate mitigation for these impacts. Consequently, the application has not yet been
deemed complete. Despite this, the applicant has requested that the project be brought forward
to the Planning Commission.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is a subdivision of approximately 37 acres into ten commercial lots and one open
space lot. The site is located adjacent to Interstate 15 to the east, Murrieta Creek to the west and
Temecula Creek to the south. The applicant is proposing to extend Old Town Front Street from
its current intersection with the future Westem Bypass Corridor into the project site ultimately
terminating in a cul-de-sac. As proposed, all the lots for development will front and take access
from the extension of Old Town Front Street.
The project proposes ten commercial lots ranging in size from 1.08 to 11.29 gross acres (0.51 to
4.64 net acres). Lots 7,8,9 and 10 all have significant areas which are within the 100-year
Floodway (Zone AE) and these areas are being excluded from development. The open space lot
which comprises 10.48 acres consists mainly of the Muftieta and Temecula Creek Channels. The
applicant is proposing to keep this area as open spaca in perpetuity with the future possibility that
ownership can be transferred over to an appropriate agency or can be used for a mitigation land
bank.
ANALYSIS
Biological Issues
The project site is approximately 37 acres of vacant property which includes portions of the
Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A biological impact report for the project site was
prepared. This report reveals that the ultimate development of the proposed project site will result
R:\STAFFRPT\307PAg7.PC.doc
2
in the removal of 30 acres of onsite Non-Native Grassland, the removal of approximately 0.5 acre
of the total Riversidian Sage Scrub onsite, and the preservation of the entire six acres of Ripadan
Woodland within the boundaries of the project site.
It has been determined that impacts to biological resources and the loss of this habitat as a result
of this project will not be significant because: 1 ) the 30 acres of non-native grassland which will be
removed is not considered a significant resource; 2) the six acres of Riparian Woodlands will be
preserved; 3) and of the one acre of Rivereidian Sage Scrub, 0.5 acres will be preserved on site
and the other 0.5 acres will be mitigated with the purchase of off-site property.
The Riparian Woodlands and jurisdictional wetlands will be preserved with the exception of 0.07
acres of area associated with a small unnamed drainage channel which bisects the site and flows
into Murdeta Creek as identified within a Wetlands Delineation study for the project site conducted
by LSA Associates. For this small area, the applicant will be required to mitigate through obtaining
a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Federal Clean Water
Act and a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and
Game.
The project site contains significant biological resources and the proposed project has the potential
to impact these biological resources. However, these impacts should not be significant if the
mitigation measures described above and appropriate conditions of approval for this project are
implemented.
Traffic Issues
The development of the proposed project is expected to cause a substantial increase to traffic
volumes on State Route 79 South/Western Bypass between Old Town Front Street and the
Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange. Although the traffic study and subsequent revisions prepared by
Robert Kahn, John Kain and Associates Inc. indicates acceptable interim operating conditions, it
is Staffs opinion that the proposed location of the project's access will adversely impact traffic flows
in the vicinity of the project, the Interstate 15/State Route 79 interchange and Old Town Front
Street. Congestion and unsafe vehicular movements can be expected at intersections within the
projecrs vicinity due to substandard intersection spacing (160 feet) between 1-15 Southbound
Ramp and Old Town Front Street, and the traffic volumes generated by the proposed project (7,909
ADT).
Another concern is the increase in conflicting movements due to the spacing between the 1-15
Southbound Ramps and the proposed project's access. Because of the short distance between
intersections and the projected heavy left-turn movements into the project, 1-15 Southbound
vehicles wishing to access the site could be forced into hazardous merging situations. This situation
could also cause the traffic to back-up on 1-15 while waiting to get to the left-turn pocket in order
to access the site. The anticipated heavy left-tum movement into the site (307 vehicles dudng p.m.
peak hour) and lack of adequate storage, could also cause gddlock at the 1-15 Southbound ramp.
It should be noted that that a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Town Front Street and 79 South
is not needed until Western Bypass Corridor is constructed. However, the access to the site as
proposed, will necessitate operation of the traffic signal at the intersection of Old Town Front Street
and 79 South which is 160 feet west of the 1-15 Southbound off-ramp. For reference, the spacing
between the intersections of Front Street/Jefferson Avenue and 1-15 Southbound ramp is
approximately 600 feet on Rancho California Road and 400 feet on Winchester Road.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOc
3
Throughout the processing of this project Staff has maintained that the traffic study and subsequent
revisions submitted for the project have not adequately addressed the traffic issues discussed
above nor has adequate mitigation measures been proposed. Consequently, the Initial Study
prepared for this project recommends the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report due to
the significant impacts associated with associated with the project traffic.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was prepared for this project and distdbuted on October 1, 1999. Findings within
this initial study indicate that the proposed project will significantly increase traffic volumes and
coupled with the fact that there is substandard and limited sparing between the intersection of Old
Town Front Street (where the project will take access) and the 1-15 southbound ramp signal,
congestion and unsafe vehicular movements will result and hazardous merging situations will be
created. As a consequence, this project may have a significant effect on the environment and it
is recommended that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project is consistent with a majority of the General Plan's policies and is also
consistent with the zoning standards regarding the HTC district as specified in the Development
Code. The project, however, does not comply with the General Plan Circulation Element Policy
1.2 which requires an evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with new development pdor
to project approval, and requires adequate mitigation measures pdor to, or concurrent with, project
development; and Policy 1.4 which requires new development to pursue trip reduction and
transportation systems management measures to reduce and limit congestion at intersections and
along streets within the City.
It is staffs determination that although the traffic study and its subsequent revisions prepared by
the applicent's traffic engineer indicate an acceptable intedm operation condition, the project as
currently proposed will increase traffic volumes, cause congestion and unsafe vehicular
movements, and create hazardous merging situations. For these reasons, staff is recommending
that the Planning Commission deny the project as it is presently proposed based on the Findings
within the Initial Study that this project could potentially have a significant effect on the environment
because the traffic study and its subsequent revisions prepared by the applicant's traffic engineer
do not adequately address the traffic issues discussed above and adequate mitigation measures
have not been proposed.
FINDINGS (For Denial)
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the projects is consistent with
the General Plan land use designations of Highwayrroudst Commercial and Open Space.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. This project
proposes ten commercial and one open space parcels on approximately 37 acres and
therefore is consistent with the Highway/Tourist Commercial and Open Space
designations. The project as proposed is not consistent with the General Plan Circulation
Element Policies 1.2 which requires an evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated
with new development pdor to project approval, and requires adequate mitigation measures
prior to, or concurrent with, project development; and Policy 1.4 which requires new
R: XSTAFFRPT\307PA97. PC .doc
4
development to pursue tdp reduction and transportation systems management measures
to reduce and limit congestion at intersections and along streets within the City.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements could potentially
cause serious public health problems in that the proposed project will significantly increase
traffic volumes, coupled with the fact that there is substandard and limited spacing between
the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project will take access) and the I-15
southbound ramp signal. As a consequence, congestion and unsafe vehicular movements
will result and hazardous merging situations will be created.
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 access from the extension of Old Town
Front Street at the Western Bypass Corridor, and will not obstruct any easements.
The map as proposed, conforms to the logical subdivision of the site,; however, the it is not
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community in that the proposed project
will significantly increase traffic volumes and coupled with the fact that there is substandard
and limited spacing between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project
will take access) and the 1-15 southbound ramp signal. As a consequence, congestion and
unsafe vehicular movements will result and hazardous merging situations will be created.
The subdivision is, however, compatible with the surrounding areas and the site will be
developed pursuant to the General Plan, and the Development Code, both of which
regulate commercial parcels and development.
The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements could potentially be
mitigated by the mitigation measures contained within the biological impact study conducted
for this project. As a consequence, the project is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlib or their habitat.
Damage to any known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site or off-site could be
potentially mitigated.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Initial Study - Blue Page 10
Exhibits - Blue Page 39
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~ITPA~7.PC.doc
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
R:\STAFFRPTX307PA97.PC.doc
6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-
0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28627), ADJACENT TO
INTERSTATE 15, SOUTI'I~/EST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD
TOWN FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 (S)/ WESTERN
BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 922-
210-047)
WHEREAS, Margadta Canyon LLC filed Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative
Parcel Map No. 28627) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code
and Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance. which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) was
processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627) on October 20, 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 headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0307;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627), 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 projects is
consistent with the General Plan land use designations Highway/Tourist Commercial and Open
Space. The project as proposed is not consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element
Policies 1.2 and 1.4. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. This
project proposes 10 commercial and one open space parcels on approximately 37 acres and
therefore is consistent with the Highway/Tourist Commercial and Open Space designations.
B. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements could
potentially cause sedous public health problems in that that the proposed project will significantly
increase traffic volumes and coupled with the fact that there is substandard and limited spacing
between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project will take access) and the I-15
southbound ramp signal, congestion and unsafe vehicular movements will result and hazardous
merging situations will be created.
R:\STAFFRFT\307PA97.PC.doc
7
C. 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 access from the extension of Old Town Front Street
at the Western Bypass Corridor, and will not obstruct any easements.
D. The map as proposed, conforms to the logical subdivision of the site,; however, the
it is not compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community in that the proposed project
will significantly increase traffic volumes and coupled with the fact that there is substandard and
limited spacing between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project will take
access) and the 1-15 southbound ramp signal, congestion and unsafe vehicular movements will
result and hazardous merg!ng situations will be created. The subdivision is, however, compatible
with the surrounding areas and the site will be developed pursuant to the General Plan, the
Development Code, all of which regulate commercial parcels and development. Future
development of commercial lots potentially will be compatible and sensitive to surrounding
development. The proposed subdivision potentially could provide adequate access and circulation
for emergency vehicles and may not impact existing circulation or emergency vehicle access.
E. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements could
potentially be mitigated so that it is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Damage to any known fish,
wildlife or habitat on the project site or off-site could be potentially mitigated,
Section 3. Environmental Compliance An Environmental Initial Study was prepared for
this project. Findings within this initial study indicate that the proposed project will significantly
increase traffic volumes and coupled with the fact that there is substandard and limited spacing
between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project will take access) and the 1-15
southbound ramp signal, congestion and unsafe vehicular movements will result and hazardous
merging situations will be created. As a consequence, this project may have a significant effect
on the environment and it is recommended that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required.
Section 4. PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this twentieth day of October, 1999.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
R:\STAFFRPT~307PA97.pC.dOC
8
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 twentieth day of October, 1999
by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFF~07PA97.PC.doc
9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL STUDY
R:\STAFFRPT~307PA97.PC.doc
10
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
General Plan Designation
Zoning
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 - Tentative Parcel Map 28627
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
John De Gange, Project Planner
(909) 694-6400
Adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town
Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor
Margarita Canyon LLC
27740 Jefferson, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC)
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT)
A proposal to subdivide an approximately 37 acre parcel into 10
commercial lots and one open space lots (TPM 28627)
The project site is approximately 37 acres of vacant property which
includes a portion of the Mun'ieta and Temecula Creek Channels.
The site is adjacent to Interstate 15 to the east, commercial areas to
the north across the future Western Bypass Corridor, a vacant open
space area across Temecula Creek to the south, and a vacant area
zoned Hillside Residential area to the west across Mumeta Creek.
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health
Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water
District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas
Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone
Company, and Riverside Transit Agency
Location Map
R:\STAFFRF~307PA97.PC.doc
11
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.
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources Population and Housing
Air Quality
Biological Resources Water
Cultural Resources
Geologic Problems
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Earlier Analyses
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 impact 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
John De Gange. Project Planner
Printed name
For
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
12
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Ce
Issue~ and Supporting Informetio~ Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, reck 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
Significant
Imoact
NO
Comments:
1.a.
No Impact. The project site is adjacent to Interstate 15 and the ultimate development of the site will not
directly impact any scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where there is a
scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. As a consequence no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project or the future development of the site.
1.b.
No Impact. There are no designated scenic resources in the vicinity of the project site. The project site
includes a portion of the Murrieta Creek Channel, however, the project as proposed will preserve the
channel and all future development will not directly impact the channel. There are no scenic resources
within the project site within the view of a scenic highway. As a consequence, no significant impact to
scenic resources will result from the proposed project or the future development of the site.
1.C.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is approximately 37 acres of
vacant property which includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A majority of the
site is composed of disturbed non-native grassland (30 acres). The remaining portion of the site is
comprised of Riparian Woodland (six acres) and Riversidian Sage Scrub plant communities (one acre).
The portion of the site which consists of drainage channels could potentially have significant visual
character given the presence of Ripadan Woodland vegetation. The ultimate complete development of
all 37 acres of the property would significantly degrade the visual character and quality of the site and
surrounding properties. As mitigation, the project proposes to preserve the entire six acres of Riparian
Woodland and one half acre of the one acre portion of the Riversidian Sage Scrub. For the one half acre
of Riversidian Sage Scrub that will be developed, the project proponent will be required to purchase one
half acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub off-site in compliance with the requirements of the California
Department of Fish and Game's Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) [based on the
Evaluation Logic Flow Chart contained in Attachment "A" of the Biological Impact Report]. After mitigation,
any potential impacts could be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
1.d.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Though this project only represents a subdivision
of the property into commercial lots, the ultimate buildout on the property will have a potentially significant
impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in lightJglare, as all development of this
nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar
Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance
Regulating Light Pollution). After mitigation, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.do¢
13
2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Convert Pdme Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use. or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ImDact Incoq~otated Impact
No
Comments:
2a. ,2c. No Impact. The project site is not currently in agdcultural production and in the historic past has not ever
formerly been used for agdcultural purposes. In addition this property is not considered pdme or unique
of Farmland of statewide importance pursuant the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Pregram of the
Califomia Resources Agency or the City of Temecula's General Plan. In addition, the project will not
involve changes in the existing environment which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to this issue.
2b.
No Impact. The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula, and
the site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. As a consequence there is no impact related to this
issue.
R:\STAFFRPT',307PA97.PC.doC
3. 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:
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?
Less Than
Potentially Significant Whh Less Than
Significant Mitigation Signjficant NO
Impact Incorporated IrnOact Impact
Comments:
3.8.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project rapresents only a subdivision of vacant property into
commercial lots; however, the analysis within this document has evaluated the potential development of
the site with commercial uses. The project as proposed will comply with State and national ambient air
quality standards. Although the project exceeds the air quality management policies in the current Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and emissions thresholds established in South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993), the City of Temecula's
General Plan EIR has addressed development of the site and proposed adequate mitigation for any
impacts. The analysis provided in 3b. below, discusses the project's compliance with the AQMP.
Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans will result from the proposed
project
3.b.
Less Than Significant Impact. This project represents only a subdivision of vacant property into
commercial lots; however, this analysis has evaluated the potential development of the site with
commercial uses. The project proposes to provide for 12.61 net acres of developable land. Pursuant to
the City of Temecula's Development Code this site can ultimately be developed with 164,788 square feet
of commercial uses based on a target Floor Area Ratio of 0.30. Though this figure exceeds the
SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Apdl 1993) threshold for impacts associated with commercial
development, this figure is consistent with target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) anticipated within the City's
General Plan. The General Plan established target floor area ratios within various land uses in order to
determine the intensity of uses and the impacts upon the environment. The General Plan EIR evaluates
the impacts of development at the target FAR. The analysis conducted for this project assumes that the
ultimate development of the site will be at the target FAR for the Highway/Tourist zoning district. It is
anticipated that the development of the site will be less than the densities anticipated by the General Plan
and analyzed within the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR has established mitigation measures
for impacts associated with air quality through The General Plan's policies and guidelines. Consequently
a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPTx307PA97.pC.doc
15
3.c.
3.d.
3.e.
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item b. above, though the project when ultimately
developed, will exceed the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993) thresholds for impacts
associated with commercial development, the City of Temecula's General Plan EIR has addressed the
impacts to air quality for a project on this site and established appropriate mitigation measures. Therefore,
all potential impacts resulting from cumulative net increases of any cdteria pollutants have been addressed
within the policies and guidelines of the City of Temecula's EIR and mitigated for. As a consequence a
less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant
pollutants in proximity to the project nor is it anticipated that the project will generate pollutants. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. Though this project only rapresents a subdivision of the property into commercial lots, the
ultimate buildout on the property may create objectionable odors during the construction phase of the
project. These impacts, however, will be short in duration and are not considered to be significant.
Consequently no impacts would result from this project.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information 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 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 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 Then
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
linDact Incorporated Impact Impset
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
Comments:
4.a. ,b. ,d.
Less than SigniFicant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is approximately 37 acres of
vacant property which includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A majodty of the
site is composed of disturbed non-native grassland (30 acres). The remaining portion of the site is
comprised of Ripadan Woodland (six acres) and Riversidian Sage Scrub plant communities (one acre).
A biological impact report for the project site was prepared by Principe and Associates in December of
1997. This study reveals that the ultimate development of the proposed project site will result in the
removal of all 30 acres of onsite Non-Native Grassland, the removal of approximately 0.5 acres of the total
Riversidian Sage Scrub onsite, and the preservation of the entire six acres of Riparian Woodland within
the boundaries of the project site. The study determined that the habitat within the Non-Native Grassland,
however is not considered to be a significant biologicel resource and the loss of this habitat is not
considered to be significant,
Development of the project site will also result in the removal of 0.5 acres of the one acre total of
Riversidian Sage Scrub which is considered a Sensitive Natural Plant Community. The study determined
that based on the Evaluation Logic Flow Chart included within the Southem California Coastal Sage Scrub,
Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP), Conservation Guidelines (Calif. Dept. of Fish and
Game, Nov. 1993), the onsite Riversidian Sage Scrub has a lower potential value for long-term
conservation given the fact that it is unoccupied by the Coastal California Gnatcatcher, and given that it
is a small isolated patch with no linkage to any other similar habitat.
The project site also contains six acres of Riparian Woodlands and jurisdictional wetlands. As proposed;
however, the project preserves almost the entire area with exception of 0,07 acres of area associated with
a small unnamed drainage channel which bisects the site and flows into Murrieta Creek as identified within
a Wetlands Delineation study for the project site was conducted by LSA Associates. For this small area
the applicant will be required to mitigate through obtaining a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and a Section 1601 Streambed
alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and Game.
As mitigation for potential impacts created by the proposed project to the 30 acres of Non-Native Grassland
and the one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub the applicant shall be conditioned to: 1 ) comply with the
requirements established in the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Long-term Habitat Conservation Plan, primarily
through the payment of a mitigation fee; 2) preserve the 0.5 acre portion of Riversidian Sage Scrub on site
and mitigate the loss of the other 0.5 acres with the purchase of off-site habitat at a ratio of 1: 1 as deemed
appropriate by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game in compliance with
the interim goals established within the NCCP Program; 3) preserve the entire six acres of Riparian
Woodlands habitat; 4) comply with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol and obtain clearance for the
Endangered Quino Checkerspot Butterfly by conducting additional field surveys prior to the issuance of
grading permits to determine if the host plant for the species are present in which case an adult survey
would be required; 5) design future development plans so that surface waters and spills drain away from
Murrieta and Temecula Creeks in order to avoid runoff contamination; 6) install utility extensions
underground; 7) revegetate all graded and disturbed areas near the channels with native tree and plant
species in order to reduce impacts from the project; 7) the applicant shall be required to prepare a
Biological Mitigation Plan to insure project compliance to the mitigation measures contained in this
document.
With the implementation of the above mentioned mitigation measures and associated conditions of
approval for this project, the impacts associated with project would be reduced to less than significant.
4.c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. In October of 1998 a Wetlands Delineation study
for the project site was conducted by LSA Associates. The study determined that approximately 5.62
R:~STAFFRPT\307PAgT.PC.dOC
4.e.
acres of the site met the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cdteda for jurisdictional wetlands and 5.93 acres
fell within the jurisdiction of the Calif. Department of Fish and Game. Of the acreage delineated as
jurisdictional wetlands a 0.07 acre portion of the site is proposed to be filled which will result in the loss of
wetlands and riparian habitat. The lost wetlands area will be from a small unnamed drainage channel
which runs through the center of the project and flows into Murrieta Creek. The wetlands areas within
Murrieta and Temecula Creeks will be unaffected.
The loss of the wetlands/jurisdiction waters will require the project proponent to obtain a 404 Permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and a Section
1601 Streambed alteration permit administered by the California Department of Fish and Game. As
mitigation for the lost wetlands the applicant will be required to obtain the necessary permits from the
above referenced agencies prior to the issuance of grading permits. After mitigation, this project would
have a less than significant impact,
No ImpacL The City of Temecula does not have any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, therefore there is no impact associated with this project relative to this issue.
Less Than Significant ImpacL The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat
(SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to pay a
mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. In addition, the subject site
contains approximately one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub which places the property within the jurisdiction
of the NCCP program. The project will be conditioned to comply with all requirements of the NCCP
program or develop their own habitat plan under the provisions of the NCCP. As a consequence a less
than significant impact is anticipated.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
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?
Less Than
No
Comments:
5.a.
No Impact. Based on a previously conducted Phase I cultural resource study it has been determined that
there are no known historical resources on site, which the project would impact based on a previous. As
a consequence no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.b.d.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan and an earlier
Archaeological Investigation conducted by the Archaeological Research Unit at the University of Califomia
at Riverside in December of 1988 identifies a sensitive archaeological area along Murrieta Creek which
may extend into the subject site. Due to the potential for deposits in the area and at the recommendation
of the UCR Eastern Information Center (within correspondence dated October 13, 1997), future
development of the proposed site will be required to conduct a Phase II archeological investigation on site
prior to the approval any development project. It is anticipated that when future development is proposed
on the site and a Phase II archaeological study is conducted that this study would propose mitigation to
address any significant impacts that may occur. As a consequence a less than significant impact is
anticipated.
5.c.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan identifies that the area
could potentially be within a highly sensitive paleontological area. Due to the potential for deposits in the
area, future development of the proposed site will be cenditioned to have an on site-monitor dudng grading
operations. The potential for future significant impacts will be determined and fully mitigated when future
development proposals are considered. As a consequence, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
R:\STAFFRPT~307PA97.PC.dOC
19
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
issues w~d Supporting Information Sources
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk 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?
c. 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?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B ,/
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e. 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?
Comments:
6.a,i. No ImpacL There are no known or identified earthquake faults as delineated on the most recent AIquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.a.ii, iv,b., and d.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. There may be a potentially significant
impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, soil erosion, or expansive soils.. Although, there are
no known fault hazard zones on the property, 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 pdor to grading and recommendations contained in this report are followed dudng 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, a less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
6.c.,a.iii
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The ultimate development of the site may
have a significant impact on people involving liquefaction and subsidence or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill. Potential impacts could be mitigated by compliance with State of California
Alquist-Pdolo Spedal Studies Zone development criteda and construction in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code standards. A soils report shall be required as part of the development and shall contained
R:\STAFFRPT\307pA97.PC.doc
20
recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant
impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in
topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control
techniques will be included as a condition of approval for development projects at the site. Potential
unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and
proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, a less than significant impact
is anticipated as a result of this project,.
No ImpacL Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The ultimate development
of the site will be required to hook up to the existing public sewer system. Therefore, no impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
RASTAFFRP~307pA97.PC.doc
21
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information 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 pdvate 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 rites, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No
Impact
Comments:
7.a.
No ImpacL Though this project only represents a subdivision of the property into commercial lots, the
ultimate buildout of the property will involve construction. Construction associated with the development
of the property will involve the use of chemical agents, solvents, paints and other hazardous materials that
are associated with construction activities. The amount of these chemicals present during construction,
however, is limited and is not considered a signiricant hazard. As a consequence, no significant impact
is expected form the routine use and disposal of these materials.
7.b.
No Impact, The future development of the site will be commercial uses. It is anticipated that the future
uses within the project site will not store or house large quantities of hazardous material that would create
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. No impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFP, FF',307PA97.PC.doc
22
7.c.
7.d.
7.e,,f.
7.g.
7.h.
No ImpacL Future development of the project site will be with commercial uses. This site is not within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The operation of construction equipment and
machinery dudn9 the development of this site may emit some hazardous emissions and or handle some
hazardous material. However, these emissions and matedal should be of limited quantities over a short
duration of time. Since this project site in not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school,
and will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste, no impacts are anticipated.
No Impact. This project site is not nor is it located near a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public
or private airstrip. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal.
No ImpacL The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede
emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No ImpacL This project site is adjacent to 1-15 to the east and Muraleta Creek to the west. Though the
site is located in the vicinity of large open space areas, it is not located in a high fire area. As a
consequence no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:XSTAFFRFB307pA97.PC.doC
23
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
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)?
c. 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?
d. 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 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?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ,/'
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ,/'
h. ,/
mapped 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 redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant dsk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
i. ,/
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ,/
Comments:
8.a. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project will not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The subdivision, and subsequent development, 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. With
mitigation a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
24
8.b.f.
8.c.d.
8.e.
8.g.
8.h.i.
8.j.
No Impact. 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 an affect on 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. Further, construction on the site will not be
at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Less Than Significant ImpacL 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 hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates
and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage
conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. A
less than significant impact is associated with this project.
Less Than Significant ImpacL Due to the small scale of the proposed subdivision, and ultimately the
future commercial 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 project will be conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as a result of the
subject site. In addition, the project will be conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding
properties. A less than significant impact is associated with this project.
No Impact. This project represents a subdivision of property into commercial parcels. Since no residential
property is effected, no impact is associated with this project.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project may expose people or
property to water related hazards such as flooding. According to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation Distdct, the project site is in area which is subject to severe flood hazard from Murrieta
Creek. Further, the site is located within the limits of the 100-year (Zone AE) floodplain/~oodway as
delineated on Panel No. 060742 0010B of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued in conjunction with the
National Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
In its current configuration; however, the project is designed with all pads for future development being
elevated above the floodway/floodplain. This project and all future development of the site will be
conditioned so that the developer will be required to file a floodplain development permit with the
appropriate approvals from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District if any
portion of the site is to be developed within the floodplain. in addition, future development will be
conditioned to pay a mitigation charge to the Murrieta Creekj'l'emecula Valley Drainage Plan.
In addition, 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. With the incorporation of mitigation measures a less than significant impact is
anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. The project site will not be subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow as these
events are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
25
9. 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?
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
9a.,b.
No Impact. The subject site is vacant and is bordered by Murrieta Creek on the west and Interstate 15
on the east. These two features provide an existing physical barrier to the surrounding properties to the
east and west. The property to the north is comprised pdmadly of existing commercial uses. The
properties to the west and south are vacant and zoned Open Space. Therefore, the proposed subdivision
of this property 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). As a consequence no impact is associated with this project.
9.c.
Less Than SignificantImpact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat
(SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to pay a
mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. In addition, according to
a biological study conducted by Principe and Associates in December of 1997 the subject site contains
approximately one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub which places the property within the jurisdiction of the
NCCP program. The project will be conditioned to comply with the NCCP program or develop their own
habitat conservation plan under the provisions of the NCCP program. As a consequence a less than
significant impact is anticipated.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.d~C
26
10. 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?
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?
No
Comments:
10.a.b. No Impact. 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. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
27
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Th&'l
No
Comments:
11.a.
Less Than Significant ImpacL This project site is designated for commercial development. The site is
currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during
construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. However, long-term noise
generated by this project would be within the limits of the General Plan standards for commercial
development. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11.b.
No Impacts. Development of the project site will be with commercial uses. It is anticipated that the uses
conducted on site will not generate activities which would expose persons to or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No impacts are anticipated.
11.c.
Less Than Significant ImpacL The project will ultimately result in the development of the site with
commercial uses which will create noise levels greater than that currently emanating from the vacant land.
However, those noises will not be substantial nor constant and are not anticipated to create a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Therefore, only less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11.d.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project may result in temporary or pedodic 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 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. A less than
significant impact would be anticipated.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
28
11 .e.f. No Impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore, people
residing in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport.
Consequently no impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.pC.doc
29
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
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,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Significant
Impact
Less Than
SignificantWith
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Comments:
12.a.
No Impact. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The
project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation of Highway/Tourist
Commercial (HT). The proposed subdivision will eventually result in the development of commemial uses,
which will cause some people to relocate to, or within the Temecula area. However, due to its limited scale,
it will not induce substantial growth beyond what is projected in the City's General Ran. No significant
effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.b.c. No Impact. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing as the site is
vacant property zoned Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT). Therefore, the project will neither displace
housing nor people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC .doe
30
13.
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 Su0Dorting 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?
b. Fire protection? ,/
c. Police protection? ,/'
d. Schools? ,/
e. Parks? ,/
f. Other public facilities?
Less Than
Potentially Significant W~th Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
Comments:
13.a.,b.,c.,e.,f.
Less Than Significant Impact. 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 centdbute its fair share through the City's
Development Impact Fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities, Due to the
project's relative small scale, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
13.d.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a
need for new or altered school fadlities, 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.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
31
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
Issues 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?
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
14.a.b. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact in the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant
numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an incremental
impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The
same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dec
32
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Issues and Sup0orting Information 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 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?
Potentially
Significant
Significant With
Significant
No
Impact
Comments:
15.a.
Potentially Significant ImpacL The development of the project and its proposed access on the south
side of Highway 79 South/Western Bypass at Front Street, will cause a substantial increase in traffic and
could have potential for significant impact at this intersection and the I-15 southbound ramps.
Due to the substandard and limited spacing between the intersection of Old Town Front Street and 1-15
southbound ramp signal (160 feet) and the high traffic volumes generated by the project (7,909 ADT),
congestion and unsafe vehicular movements could be expected at intersections in the vicinity of the
project.
Although the traffic study prepared by the applicants consultant and its subsequent revisions indicate an
acceptable interim operation conditions, staff believes that the site access as proposed, will adversely
impact the traffic flow in the vicinity of the project at the I-15 interchange.
15.b.
Potentially Significant Impact. This project could potentially cumulatively exceed the level of service
standard (LOS "E") established within the County's Congestion Management Plan (CMP). State Highway
79(S), and Interstate 15 are roads which am within the County's CMP. Though the traffic study conducted
by the applicant's traffic engineer states otherwise, City staff has determined that this project will be
responsible for a significant increase in traffic volumes. This increase in traffic volumes coupled with the
close spacing between the intersection at the extension of Old Town Front Street and Western Bypass
Corridor with the southbound on and off ramps for I-15, may lead to congestion and gridlock on State
Highway 79(S) and could potentially cause southbound traffic on 1-15 to back up. As a consequence a
potentially significant impact may result from this project.
15.c. No Impact. Neither the subdivision of the project site nor the future development of this property will result
in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doC
33
results in substantial safety dsks. This site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight overlay district
and therefore will have no impact on the project.
15.d.
15.e.
15.f.
15.g.
Potentially Significant Impact.. The proposed project could substantially increase hazards due the
location of the intersection of the extension of Old Town Front Street and the Western Bypass Corridor in
terms of its spacing with the southbound on and off ramps for 1-15. After reviewing the traffic study and
subsequent revisions prepared by the applicant's traffic engineer, City staff has determined that will
generate significant traffic volumes. These increased traffic volumes coupled with the close spacing
between the intersection at the extension of Old Town Front Street and Western Bypass Corridor with the
southbound on and off ramps for 1-15, may lead to significant traffic congestion. The added congestion
combined with close spacing of the Old Town Front Street and I-15 ramps could result in unsafe vehicular.
The traffic study submitted for this project does not adequately address this issue, therefore this project
could have a potentially significant impact.
Less Than Significant Impact. This project is a subdivision of vacant property into commercial lots and
as a consequence it is difficult to determine what the ultimate impacts on emergency access will be at this
time. All subsequent development projects on parcels within this project will be evaluated to determine
the impacts to emergency access. Future development of the site will be conditioned to meet all applicable
standards in place at the time of development. Emergency access to nearby uses will not be affected by
this project given that the project is generally surrounded by undevelopable properties. As a consequence
the project will have a less than significant impact.
No Impact. This project represents a subdivision of vacant land into commercial lots, no specific
development is being proposed at this time. Consequently it is not possible to determine specific parking
requirements for the site, however, any subsequent development of the proposed parcels will be required
to comply with the City's Development Code parking requirements for commercial uses. Therefore, no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Less Than Significant ImpacL The project as proposed does not currently conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. When future development is proposed for the
site, individual projects will be reviewed to determine if the provision of alternative transportation
opportunities will be appropriate. As a consequence, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97,PC.dOC
34
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation SignifiCaa~t
Issues and Supporting Jnforrnation 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
environmental effects?
c. 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?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the projecrs projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the projecrs solid waste disposal
needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
NO
./
Comments:
16.a.,b., e.
No Impact. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of
new treatment fadlities, nor affect the capadty 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.
No significant impacts are anticipated.
16.c.
No Impact. The project will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities. The development
of the tract will require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities on site that will
connect to the existing system currently in place along Old Town Front Street at the northern end of the
site. The design of the existing system is sufficient handle this project and will not require the expansion
of existing tacilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Drainage fees
are required by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to reimburse the
county for the Murdeta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan, No significant impacts are anticipated.
16.d. No Impact. 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
R:~STAFFRPTX307PA97.PC.doc
35
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.
16.f.g. Less Than Significant ImpacL 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..
R:\STAFFRFT\307PA97.PC.doc
36
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
b=
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
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 pedods 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?
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significmqt
Imoac~
No
Comments:
17.a.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The ultimate development of the site has potential
to impact habitat for fish or wildlife species. The project proposes to disturb 0.5 acres of Riversidian Sage
Scrub, however, if the project were appreved mitigation measures would be included to reduce this to a
less than significant impact. In addition, the project proposes to disturb 0.07 acres of wetlands. If
approved the project would be conditioned to mitigate this impact by obtaining a Section 404 Permit from
the Army Corps of Engineers and a Section 1601 Permit from the Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game. A less
than significant impact would result if mitigation measures are incorporated.
17.b.
Potentially Significant Impact. The project could have a potentially significant impact with respect to
traffic impacts. City staff has determined that the project could potentially generate increased traffic
volumes which could cumulatively effect traffic in the vicinity of the project.
17.c.
No Impact. This project and the future development of the site will not have environmental effects that
would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The subdivision is
designed and will be developed consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. If approved,
no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRYr\307PA97.PC.d~c
37
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
Earlier analyses used. Identify eadier 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.
18.a.
18.b.
18.c.
No eadier analyses specifically related to this project site were used. However, a number of studies were
conducted for a previous subdivision (Tentative Parcel Map 23987) which included this property. These
studies include: "A Reevaluation of Archaeological Sites Recorded on TPM 23987" prepared by The
Archaeological Research Unit at UCR (December 1988); A Biological Assessment conducted by Tierra
Madre Consultants (October 1988); A Stephens Kangaroo Rat Study conducted by Friesen Biological
Surveys for TPM 19851 (undated); two Geotechnical Investigations conducted by Schaefer Dixon
Associates (Apdl 1988 and February 1989).. With the exception of the archeological study, none of these
studies were used in this analysis due to their age. Reference was only briefly made to this document.
The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in
preparing this Initial Study
There were no earlier impacts which affected this project.
The recommendation of this Initial Environmental Study is that an Environmental Impact Report be
prepared. As a consequence no Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared.
2.
3.
4.
5.
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management Distdct CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
The City of Temecula Development Code.
Focused Traffic Analysis for TPM 28627 prepared by RKJK & Associated - May 1999 (with subsequent
amendments)
Biological Impact Report for TPM 28627 prepared by Principe & Associates - December 1997
Delineation of Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters for TPM 28627 prepared by LSA Associates -
October 1998
A Reevaluation of Archaeological Sites Recorded on TPM 23987 prepared by The Archaeological
Research Unit at UCR (December 1988)
R:\STAFFRFFX307PA97.PC.doc
38
AI'I'ACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRFI'\307PAg'7.PC.dOc
39
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 20° 1999
VICINITY MAP
F:~Depts\PLANNING~TAFFRF~307pA97.pC.dOC
38
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B -ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - HT (HIGHWAY/TOURIST COMMERCIAL)/
OS-C (CONSERVATION)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS (Open Space)
CASE NO. - PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - OCTOBER 20, 1999
F:\Dept~\PLANNING~TAFFRPr~07PA97.PC,doc
39
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT ~ PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 15, 2000
Planning Application No~ PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133)
Prepared By: Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0389 FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29133 (LOT 1 AND A PORTION OF LOT
7 OF TRACT NO. 8211), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE YNEZ
ROAD 707 FEET SOUTH OF CALLE HALCON AND YNEZ ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-024; AND
ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133); and
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application
No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133).
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
J. Michael Lanni
Planning Application No. PA98-0389 is a request for a
Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 4.99 acres of land into eight
(8) residential lots.
Located on the east side of Ynez Road, 707 feet south of
Calle Halcon and Ynez Road (Assessor's Parcel Numbers
945-060-024)
Lo2 (Low Density Residential)
North: M (Low Medium Density Residential)
South: L-1 (Low Density Residential)
East: L-1 (Low Density Residential)
West: SP-8 [Specific Plan 8 (Rancho Highlands)]
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.dOC
!
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: L (Low Density Residential)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Low Medium Density Residential
South: Low Medium Density Residential
,East: Low Medium Density Residential
West: Medium Density Residential
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA98-0389 for Tentative Tract Map No. 29133, with 8 lots, was submitted
on September 18, 1996. (The City previously approved this map in 1991 under Tentative Tract
Map No. 24172. One Extension of Time was processed for this map in 1993 and the map officially
expired in 1997.) Development Review Committee (DRC) meetings were held on October 15, 1998
and November 11, 1999. The first review determined that the map submitted was the old map that
had expired and was prepared by a firm no longer in business. The applicant was informed that
a new map would have to be prepared so that there would be an official engineer of record for the
map. The map was deemed complete on February 28, 2000.
ANALYSIS
Access and Circulation
The subdivision proposes one cul-de~sac street taking access from Ynez Road. All lots are on the
south side of the street or the end of the cul-de-sacs. No lots take access from Ynez Road.
Development Standards
Pursuant to Table 17.06.040, of the City of Temecula's Development Code, the minimum lot size
for Low Density Residential zoned parcels is .5 acre gross lot area. The proposed parcels range
in size from 20,000 square feet to 25,391 square feet. All lots are consistent with the Development
Code's lot sizes requirements of .5 to 1.0 acres net. The subdivision proposes to have 1.6 dwelling
units per acre (du/ac), which is within the General Plan's range of .5 to 2 du/ac.
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. The
mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and the Conditions of
Approval that have been added to the project provide mitigation, and a Negative Declaration is
hereby granted.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed map provides adequate access, circulation and developable lots. The proposed lots
comply with the minimum lot size requirements of the Low Density Residential zoning classification
pursuant to Chapter 17, Table 17.06.040 of the Development Code. The parcels are consistent with
the General Plan Land Use Map and the zoning map, Therefore, staff recommends approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 29133 based upon the following findings:
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~389pa98.doc
FINDINGS
The proposed land division is compatible with the General Plan designation and zoning. The
site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land
Use designation forthe site is L (Low Density Residential). Tentative Tract Map No. 29133
proposes eight (8) residential lots, which comply with the minimum lot size requirement of
.5 acre (gross) and the unit density of .5 to 2 units per acre.
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 proposes one cul-de-
sac street taking access from Ynez Road, and is consistent with these documents.
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 Ynez Road 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 will be developed pursuant to the General Plan, and the
Development Code, all of which regulate residential parcels and development. Future
development of residential units will be compatible and sensitive to the surrounding
residential development. In 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.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No, 99- - Blue Page 4
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 7
2. Exhibits - Blue Page 16 A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Tentative Tract Map No. 29133
3. Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page
4, Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.doc
3
A'i'rACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98-doc
4
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-0389 FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29133 (LOT 1 AND A PORTION OF LOT
7 OF TRACT NO. 8211), LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE YNEZ
ROAD 707 FEET SOUTH OF CALLE HALCON AND YNEZ ROAD
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 945-060-024.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula has received an application
from J. Michael Lanni for Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133);
and,
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133) 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. PA98-0389
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29133) on March 15, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify
either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA98-0389;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133, hereby makes the following findings
as required in the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
A. The proposed land division is compatible with the General Plan designation and
zoning. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan
Land Use designation for the site is L (Low Density Residential). Tentative Tract Map No. 29133
proposes eight (8) residential lots, which comply with the minimum lot size requirement of ¼ acre
and the unit density of .5 to 2 units per acre.
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 conformanca with the
City's General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance. The project proposes one col-
de-sac street taking access from Ynez Road, and is consistent with these documents. 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 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 Ynez Road and will not obstruct
\%TEMEC_FS101WOL1\Depts\PLANN]NG\STAFFRPT~389pa98.doc
5
any easements.
D. 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 will be developed pursuant to the General Plan, and the
Development Code, all of which regulate residential parcels and development. Future development
of residential units will be compatible and sensitive to the surrounding residential development.
In 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.
Section 3. Environmental Coml~liance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration. therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4, Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133) located on the east side of
Ynez Road 707 feet south of Calle Halcon and Ynez Road, and known as Assessors Parcel No.
945-060-024.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of March, 2000.
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 15th day of March,
2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
\\TEMEC_¢S101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~389pa98,doC
6
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP'~389pa98.doc
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133)
Project Description:
The subdivision of 4.99 acres of land into eight (8) lots
zoned Low Density Residential.
Development Impact Fee Category: Residential
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
945-060-024
March 15, 2000
March 15, 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount
of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to
file the Notice of Determination with a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative
Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code
of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (46) hour period the applicant has
not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of
condition [Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)].
General Requirements
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions,
awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek
monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the
approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal
board or legislative body including actions approved by the 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.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98,doc
8
4. If 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 contained in the projects Mitigation Monitoring Program.
6. After grading all slopes shall be planted in accordance with the City's Slope Planting
Guidelines. Jute netting will be required on all slopes greater than ten linear feet.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
7. A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Department.
8. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
9. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
a. This property is located within thidy (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All
proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
9. 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
10. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
11. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
12. 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.
13. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and
shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
14. 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
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.doC
15.
16.
m.
n.
o.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Cable TV Franchise
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
Fish & Game
Army Corps of Engineers
The Developer shall 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 Ynez Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' RAN) to include
dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
b. Improve Street A (Local Road Standards - 60' R/W) to include dedication of full-
width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving,
curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping,
utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
c. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.
d. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in
the design of the street improvement plans:
e. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00%
minimum over A.C. paving.
f. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207 and/or 208.
g. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
h. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos.
400,401and 402.
i. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the
project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining
properties.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
k. 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.
I. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through curb outlets per City Standard No. 301,302 or 303.
m. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV
shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where
adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility
provider.
n. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or other
disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%389pa98.doc
~,0
17. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Ynez Road on the Final Map.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is pad of an
existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to
City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for
reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
21. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
22. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final
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 and Public Works
Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS:
a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain,
b. Special Study Zones.
c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the projecrs geotechnical report.
d. Archeological resources found on the site.
23. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject
property.
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
Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report
obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
25. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable 'IV shall be
provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility prorider. Telephone, cable TV,
and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
26. The Developer shall notify the City's cable 'T'V Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit
shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
27. Pdvate drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated
and noted on the Final Map.
28. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc,, shall be shown on the Final Map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98,doc
the Final Map. A note shall be added to the Final Map stating "drainage easements shall
be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
29. 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. Riverside County Health Department
f. General Telephone
g. Southern California Edison Company
h. Southern California Gas Company
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist
and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site
including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include
recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
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 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.
35. 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.
36. The Developer sha)l 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.
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DeptS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~389pa98,dOC
37, All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent
of any other lot.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
38, The Final 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 California Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards
and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
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:
a, Rancho California Water District
b, Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due
to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
43.
44.
45.
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 residential 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 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure 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)
48. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill. B, Table A-Ill-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa9B,doc
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)
49, Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cut-
de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3)
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 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. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902)
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)
54. 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)
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)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
General Requirements
57. A Class II bike lane on Ynez Road shall be completed in concurrence with the roadway
improvements.
58. Prior to installation of residential and arterial street lighting or issuance of building permits,
whichever comes first, the developer shall pay the appropriate energy fees to the TCSD.
59. All slopes, parkway landscaping and open space shall be maintained by a homeowners
association or the property owner.
Prior to Approval of the Final Map
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.doc
60. Prior to approval of the final map, the developer shall satisfy the City's parkland dedication
requirement (Quimby) through the payment of in-lieu fees equal to .11 acres of parkland.
The fees shall be calculated by multiplying the required parkland by the City's then current
appraised land valuation as established by the City Manager.
61. The developer shall file an application with the TCSD to initiate election proceedings for the
transfer and acceptance of residential street :ighting responsibilities into the TCSD
maintenance program.
Prior to Certificate of Occupancy
62. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the applicant or his assignee shall
submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers to the final project.
63. The developer shall provide written disclosure of the existence of the TCSD and its service
level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
OTHER AGENCIES
64. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated September 28, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
65. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated November 17, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
66. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Valley
Unified School District's transmittal dated October 13, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
67. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Fish
and Game transmittal dated October 21, 1998, a copy of which is attached.
68. 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.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Name printed
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~389pa98.dOC
ll, ancho
Water
September 28, 1998
Thomas Thornsley, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
TRACT NO. 24172
APN 945-060-002 ~e, ?
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA98-03.98---
Dear Mr. Thornsley:
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
98/SB:mc230/F012-T6/FCF
c: Laurie Willjams, Engineering Services Supervisor
EASTERN MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT
Board of Directors
Richard R Hall
Marion ~ A~hle)
C]a>Rm A. Record. Jr
Rodget D Siems
Direct.r of the
3letropolitan t~ater
District of So. Califi
Chesler C. Gilbert
Joseph J. Kueblcr, CPA
November 17, 1998
City of Temecula
Planning Department
P. O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Re: Sanitary Sewer Service Availability for Tentative Tract Map ~' "j
Dear Sir:
The District is writing to contim a "will serve" for a subdivision of 5 acres into
residential parcels. The availability of service will be contingent on limiting
conditions existing beyond EMWD's control, or a determination by the developer
to be cost-ineffective The District advises the developer to contact the District's
Customer Service Department at (909)928-3777 for existing facilities capacities
and other conditions of service.
Sincerely,
Warren Back
Civil Engineer
Customer Service
WAB:jf
2270 Trumble Road Post Office Box 8300 Pegis. CA 92572-8300 Tel (90% 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177
\\
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
SUPERINTENDENT
Dawa B Al:men
October 13, 1998
Mr. Thomas Thomsley
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: PA98-03E ',
Dear Mr. Thomsley:
Temecula Valley Unified School District requests a signed school facilities mitigation agreement on Case
No. PA98-031]1~ in accordance with City Resolutions 95-36 and 96-119. A blank agreement is enclosed.
Sincerely,
Temecuta Valley Unified School District
~rdinator of Facilities Services
OCT ,L 6 1998
31350 Rancno Vista Rcmd Temecula CA 92592 t (909) 676-2661
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BUSINESS. TRANSPORTA'RON AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OISTRICT I, 414 W. 4l~ STREET, 6ffi FLOOR
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 12401-1400
PETEWILSON. Goverr~w
October 19, 1998
08-Riv-15-4.12
Mr. Thomas Thornsley
Case Planner
43200 Business Park Drive
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Thornsley:
Planning Application 98-0:~1.~
We have reviewed the above referenced documents and request consideration of
the following comments:
Caltrans supports economic growth and orderly land use development;
however, new development must pay its fair share for upgrading infrastructure
facilities needed to serve the development. This infrastructure includes State
highways and freeways. It also includes both direct and cumulative traffic
impacts. All jurisdictions should take measures available to fund improvements
and reduce total trips generated. In view of the fact there are limited funds
available for infrastructure improvements, we recommend the City of Temecula
take the lead in developing a fair-share mechanism in which each project can
fund improvements for the decrease in Level of Service (LOS) for which it is
responsible.
Please send a copy of the plo~/site plan depicting all existing and proposed
facilities, structures, vegetation, adjacent street (with centerlines and driveways),
etc. and with a vicinity map.
JL~T .~ 0 1998
Mr. Thomas Thornsley
October 19, 1998
Page 2
If you have any questions, please contact Garrett Miyahira at (909) 383-6212 or FAX
(909) 383-5936.
Sincerely,
LINDA GRIMES, Chief
Office of Regional Planning/
Forecasting/Public Transportation
State of Califorma * The ResourCe ency
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
http://www. dfg.ca.gov
Eastern Sierra-Inland Deserts Region
330 Golden Shore, Suite 50
Long Beach, California 90802
(562) 590-5113
PETE WILSON, Golernor
October 21, 1998
Mr. Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
P.O. Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Thornsley:
Project Notice
PA98-0314~I~R'M2
Riverside County
The Department of Fish and Game (Department) appreciates this opportunity to
comment on the above-referenced project, relative to impacts to biological resources. To
enable Department staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed project, we
recommend the following information be included in "any environment document prepared for
the proposed project:"
A complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area,
with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique
species and sensitive habitats.
A thorough assessment of rare plants and rare natural communities, following
the Department's May 1984 Guidelines for Assessing Impacts to Rare Plants
and Rare Natural Communities (Attachment 1).
A complete assessment of sensitive fish, wildlife, reptile, and amphibian species.
Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also be addressed.
Focused species-specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and
time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are
required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in
consultation with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
C=
Rare, threatened, and endangered species to be addressed should include all
those which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition
(see CEQA Guidelines, § 15380).
Mr. Thomas Thomsley, Project Planner
October 21, 1998
Page Two
The Department's California Natural Diversity Data Base in Sacramento should
be contacted at (916) 327-5960 to obtain current information on any previously
reported sensitive species and habitat, including Significant Natural Areas
identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code.
A thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely
affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts.
CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a), direct that knowledge of the regional setting is
critical to an assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis
should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to the region.
Project impacts should be analyzed relative to their effects on off-site habitats.
Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent
natural habitats, and dpahan ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of
wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in
adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated and provided.
The zoning of areas for development projects or other uses that are nearby or
adjacent to natural areas may inadvertently contribute to wildlife-human
interactions. A discussion of possible conflicts and mitigation measures to
reduce these conflicts should be included in the environmental document.
A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as deschbed under CEQA
Guidelines, § 15130. General and sDecific plans, as well as past, present, and
anticipated future projects, should De analyzed relative to their impacts on similar
plant communities and wildlife habitats.
The document should include an analysis of the effect that the project may have
on completion and implementation of regional and/or subregional conservation
programs. Under § 2800- §2840 of the Fish and Game Code, the Department,
through the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, is
coordinating with local jurisdictions, landowners, and the Federal Government to
preserve local and regional biological diversity. Coastal sage scrub is the first
natural community to be planned for under the NCCP program. The Department
recommends that the lead agency ensure that the development of this and other
proposed projects does not preclude long-term preserve planning options and
that projects conform with other requirements of the NCCP program,
Jurisdictions participating in the NCCP should assess specific projects for
consistency with the NCCP Conservation Guidelines.
Mr. Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
October 21, 1998
Page Three
A range of alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed
project are fully considered and evaluated. A range of alternatives which avoid or
otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included.
Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource
sensitivity where appropriate,
Mitigation measures for project impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats
should emphasize evaluation and selection of alternatives which avoid or
otherwise minimize project impacts. Off-site compensation for unavoidable
impacts through acquisition and protection of high-quality habitat elsewhere
should be addressed.
The Department considers Rare Natural Communities as threatened habitats
having both regional and local significance. Thus, these communities should
be fully avoided and otherwise protected from project-related impacts
(Attachment 2).
The Department generally does not support the use of relocation, salvage,
and/or transplantation as mitigation for impacts to rare, threatened, or
endangered species. Department studies have shown that these efforts are
experimental in nature and largely unsuccessful.
A California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit must be obtained, if the project
has the potential to result in "take" of species of plants or animals listed under CESA,
either during construction or over the life of the project. CESA Permits are issued to
conserve, protect, enhance, and restore State-listed threatened or endangered species
and their habitats. Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the
proposed project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA
Permit. Revisions to the Fish and Game Code, effective January 1998, require that the
Department issue a separate CEQA document for the issuance of a CESA permit
unless the project CEQA document addresses all project impacts to listed species and
specifies a m!tigation monitoring and reporting program that will meet the requirements
of a CESA permit. For these reasons, the following information is requested:
Biological mitigation monitoring and reporting proposals should be of sufficient
detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements for a CESA Permit.
b=
A Department-approved Mitigation Agreement and Mitigation Plan are required
for plants listed as rare under the Native Plant Protection Act,
The Department opposes the elimination of watercourses and/or their channelization or
conversion to subsurface drains. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent or
Mr. Thomas Thomsley, Project Planner
October 21, 1998
Page Four
perennial, must be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve the
dpadan and aquatic values and maintain their value to on-site and off-site wildlife
populations.
The Department has direct authority under Fish and Game Code § 1600 et seq.
in regard to any proposed activity which would divert, obstruct, or affect the
natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.
Eady consultation is recommended, since modification of the proposed project
may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
A discussion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff,
sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and
watercourses on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to
alleviate such impacts must be included.
The Department holds regularly scheduled pre-project planning/early consultation
meetings. To make an appointment, please call our regional office at (562) 590-5137.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Questions regarding this letter and further
coordination on these issues should be directed to Mr. Raul Rodriguez, Fishery Biologist, at
(909) 597-1008.
Sincerely,
Curt Taucher
Regional Manager
Attachments
cc: See attached list
Mr. Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
October 21, 1998
Page Five
cC:
Mr. Kevin-Barry Brennan
Department of Fish and Game
Idyllwild, California
Mr. Raul Rodriguez
Department of Fish and Game
Chino Hills, California
Mr. Jim Dice
Department of Fish and Game
Borrego Springs, California
Ms. Dee Sudduth
Department of Fish and Game
Jamul, California
Mr. William Tippets
Department of Fish and Game
San Diego, California
Mr. Jeff Neuman
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad, California
Mr. Eric Stien
U,S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles, Califomia
State Clearinghouse
Sacramento, California
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager43tficf Engineer
RIVERSDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
51IS0.1
1998
City of Temecula
Planfin De rimeft
Temecuta, California 92589-9033
Atte,~o.: T~O~'- T~RNS c6 7
Lsdie, and ean.eman: Re: ~ 2. ~ ,: S ~
The District does not normally recommend condrdons for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The District also does not an chec~ ci~ land use cases, or provide State DMsion of Real Estate tettem or
other flood hazard reDORS for st%elcases. Disffict mntem.s/recommec~dations for such cases are normally limited
and District Area Brainage Plan fees (development mifigatiofi fees). In addition, information of a general ~t~re is
provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following Checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safety or any other such issue:
/ This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional roterest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will acce ownershi of such facilities on
wdtfan request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standarras, and Bl?la~ct plan check and
f
insp~on will be requir6d or 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
conmdemd regional in nature and/or a I ical extension of the adopted
V,/ is project is located within the limits of the Districts t) TA (~ ~' C, UI.~a
'
permits whiChever Comes ~{~tt. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the
actual porm't.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project ma uira a National Potlutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water
Resources Co,~frerleacard. ClearanCe for grading recordation, or other final approval should not be given until the
City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or s shown to be exempt.
If this pro'ect involves a Federal EmergenCy Management Agency (FEMA mapRed flood plain, then the C should
.~uire ~..,,,ica,t ,o p.~d..,I e~dies. ¢,¢.,~o.,. ~ and ogr ..tormatio..~ui, to m~ FE,~
requirements, and should further require that the a plicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR)
prior to gredieg, recomation or other final apprevarof ~ p~ect, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR(~ pdor to
occupancy.
If 8 natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the a licant to
obtain a Section 160111603 Agreement from the CaFi~mia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~ater Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these a encies
indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail Ce~cation
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of ~e Corps 404
permit.
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: l D- ~,- c?~
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
EXHIBITS
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.dOc
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT SITE I
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 15, 2000
NT.S
VICINITY MAP
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP~389pa98.dOC
CITY OF TEMECULA
PROJECT'S'iTE ~
~..':, ~.?':.' .....
EXHIBIT B
DESIGNATION - L-2 (Low Density Residential)
ZONING MAP
0000000000
00
PROJECT SITE
EXHIBIT C
DESIGNATION - L (Low Density Residential)
CASE NO. - PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map 29133)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 15, 2000
GENERAL PLAN
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.doc
18
CITY OF TEMECULA
;:.,- I:
'1111111i, ~
'IIIIIIi. II
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133)
EXHIBIT D TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - March 15, 2000
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98.dOC
ATTACHMENT NO, 3
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~389pa98,dOc
20
City of Temecula
Planning Department
PROJECT:
DISTRIBUTION DATE:
CASE PLANNER:
Agency Distribution List
Planning Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map 29133)
February 9, 2000, to March 1, 2000
Thomas K. ThornsIcy
CITY OF TEMECULA:
Building & Safety ...........: ....................(X)
Fire Department ..................................(X)
Sheriff ..............................................( )
Parks & Recreation (TCSD) ...................( )
Planning, Advance ...............................( )
Public Works .....................................(X)
............ ()
STATE:
Caltrans ............................................(X)
Fish & Game .....................................(
Mines & Geology ................................(
Regional Water Quality Control Bd ..........(
State Clearinghouse ..............................(
State Clearinghouse (10 Copies) ..............(
Water Resources .................................(
.......... (
FEDERAL:
Army Corps of Engineers ......................
Fish and Wildlife Service ......................
CITY OF MURRIETA:
Planning ............................................( )
RIVERSIDE COUNTY:
Airport Land Use Commission ................. ( )
Engineer ...........................................(X)
Flood Control ....................................(X)
Health Department ..............................(X)
Parks and Recreation .............................( )
Planning Department .............................( )
Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) ..... ( )
Riverside Transit Agency .......................( )
........... ( )
UTILITY:
Eastern Municipal Water District ............. (X)
Inland Valley Cablevision .......................( )
Rancho CA Water District, Will Serve ...... (X)
Southern California Gas ................ (X)
Southern California Edison ....................(X)
Temecula Valley School District ...............( )
Metropolitan Water District ....................( )
REGIONAL:
Air Quality Management District .............
Western Riverside COG ........................
OTHER:
Pechanga Indian Reservation ...................( )
Eastern Information Center .....................( )
Local Agency Formation Comm ............... )
RCTC ..............................................)
Homeowners' Association ...................... )
I/TEMEC_FSI01\VOLI\DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA\447pa98 NOP
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Notice of Proposed Negative.Declaration
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Planning Application No. PA98-0389, (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133)
Michael Lanni, 21 Old Course Dr~ Newport Beach, CA 92660
Located on the east side of Ynez Road 707 feet south of the intersection of Calle
Halcon and Ynez Road (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 945-060-002)
A request to subdivide 4.77 acres of land into eight (8) residential lots on a cubde-
sac street.
The City of Temecula intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project described above.
Based upon the information contained in the attached Initial Environmental Study and pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); it has been determined that this
project as proposed, revised or mitigated will not have a significant impact upon the environment. As
a result, the Planning Commission intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.
The mitigation measures required to reduce or mitigate the impacts of this project on the environment
are included in the project design and/or the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached to this
Notice and will be included as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.
The Comment Period for this proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is February 9, 2000, to March
1. 2000. Written comments and responses to this notice should be addressed to the contact person listed
below at the following address: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033. City
Hall is located at 43200 Business Park Drive.
The public notice of the intent to adopt this Mitigated Negative Declaration is provided through:
X The Local Newspaper. X Posting the Site. X Notice to Adjacent Property Owners.
If you need additional information or have any questions concerning this project, please contact the
Project Plarmer, Thomas Thornsley at (909) 694-6400.
(Signature)
Thomas K. Thornsley, Project Planner
(Name and Title)
ITEMEC FSI0[/VOLI\Depts/PLANNING/CEQA\~47pa98 NOP dec
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
General Plan Designation
Tentative Tract Map No. 29133 (Planning Application No. PA98~
0389)
City of Temecuta
P.O. Box 9033,
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Thomas Thornsley, Project Planner
(909) 694-6400
Located on the east side of Ynez Road 707 feet south of the
intersection of Calle Halcon and Ynez Road (Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 945-060-002)
J. Michael Lanni, 21 Old Course Dr., Newport Beach, CA 92660
Low Density Residential (L)
i Zoning
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
Low Density Residential (L-2)
PA98-0389 is a request to subdivide 4.77 acres of land into eight (8)
residential lots.
North: Single family residential
East: Single family residential
South: Single family residential
West: Single family residential
None,
F:\Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
1
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
incise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
,f
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect 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
1 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.
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially impacts(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
Printed name
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
2
1. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Inforrnat~on 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, Ioca~ 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?
Comments:
1.a.
1.b.
Less Than
S~gnificant
Impact
The project will not disrupt of divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The
project site is vacant and surrounded by single family homes. The development of this site will be
consistent with the surrounding properties. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not conflict with applicable General Plan designation, environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General
Plan land use designation of L (Low Density Residential .5-2 du/acre) as well as the zoning of L-2 (Low
Density Residential .5-.1 du/acre). Impacts from all General Plan land use designations were analyzed
in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the
City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact
their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project where
necessary. 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 policies. The project site has been not been
previously graded; however, services are available into the area. There will be no impacts on adopted
environmental plans or policies.
The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. The site has been grubbed for weed abatement and fire protection due
to its proximity to adjacent residential units. This site is not within any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DeptS\PLANNING%CEQA\389Da98 new IES,doc
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Issues and SupOorlmq Information 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,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mnigation
lncorDorate~
Less Than
Significant
I Impact
No
Impac~
,/
Comments:
2.a.
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 Low Density Residential
(L). The proposed subdivision will eventually result in the development of new single family
homes, which will cause some people to relocate to, or within Temecula. However, due to its
limited scale (eight lots), it will not induce substantial growth beyond what is projected in the
City's General Plan. No impacts 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
vacant property zoned Low Medium Density Residential. Therefore, the project will neither displace
housing nor people necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL 1 \DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA\389pagB new IES .doc
4
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
ii)
iii)
iv)
Issues and Supporung ~nforrnatlon 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-S
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?
Significant
No
Impact
Comments:
The Wildomar earthquake fault is plotted through this property on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Because of the proximity of the fault line the owner had a
Preliminary Geotechnical Fault Investigation carried out by Leighton and Associates, Inc. The
results of this report dated August 23, 1988, indicated that there was no evidence of active
faulting in the exploratory trenches excavated on site. This report wac approved by the Riverside
County Engineering Geologist, Steve Kupferman, on march 20, 1990. Mr. Kupferman reaffirmed
the validity of this report in a fax to the project planner dated January 13, 2000. After mitigation
measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
iii, b., and d.
There may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, soil
erosion or expansive soils. Although, there are no known fault hazard zones on the property, 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
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
5
3.a. iv, c.
The City's General Plan does not identify the subject site as being within an area of subsidence,
landslides or liquefaction hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The project will be required to
hook up to the existing public sewer system. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
issues and SuloDorling Information Sources
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)?
c. 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
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
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?
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
NO
,f
Comments;
4.a. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The
subdivision, and subsequent development, will be required to comply with the requirements of the
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES,doc
6
4.b,,f.
4.c,d.
4.e.
4.j.
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 impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
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 an affect on 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. Further,
construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground
waters or aquifer volume. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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-site 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Due to the small scale of the proposed subdivision, and ultimately the future single family
residential 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 project will be conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as a result of
the subject site. In addition, 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.
The project will have no impact on people or property to water related hazards such as flooding
because the project site is located outside of the 100 year floodway and the dam inundation area
as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. No impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project site will not be subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow as these events
are not known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL 1 \DeI~tS~PLANNI NG\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
7
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
issues and SupDorlmg Inforrnat~on 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?
Less Than
S~gnificant
EmOac!
No
Comments:
5.a-c.
The project will not conflict with applicable air quality plans nor violate air quality or pollution standards.
The project proposes to subdivide a 4.99 acres into 8 residentially zoned lots. The subdivision, and
future development, are anticipated to be within the number of dwelling units threshold for potentially
significant air quality impact established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as
depicted in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Source 3) page 6-10, Table 6.2. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.d.
There are no known sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity. The future
development of the project for single family homes will create minor pollutants during the grading and
construction phase of the project emanating from fugitive dust and small quantities of construction
equipment pollutants. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. The
future residents are not likely to generate significant pollutants. Therefore, impacts will be less than
significant as a result of this project.
5.e.
The project may create objectionable odors during the grading and construction of single family home,
however, these impacts are anticipated to be of short duration and should have less than a significant
impact.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL 1%Depts\PLANNING\CEQA%389pa98 new IES .doc
8
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Issues and Supporbng information 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 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?
Unless Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
qmoact
No
Impact
,/
,/
,/
Comments:
6.a, b. There will be an increase in vehicle trips on adjacent streets once the proposed subdivision is
developed. Due to the number of lots the vehicle trip count per, the City's Traffic Engineer and
the Institute of Transportation Engineers riTE) estimates the total vehicle trips per day for 8 single-
family residences would be approximately 80 daily trips. The City's Traffic Engineer indicated that
the future single family 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 roadways have
been developed in anticipation of the proposed residential development. No further traffic studies
were required for this project. The development of tract 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.
6 .c Neither the tract map nor the future development of this property will 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. This site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight overlay district and therefore will
have no impact on the project.
6.d The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current
City standards and does not propose any hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
6.e. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses. The
project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does
not interfere with access to nearby uses and will install improvements to Ynez Road. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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 residential use. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1%Depts\PLANNING\CEQA%389pa98 new IES,doc
9
' 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
issues and Suplaor~mg tnformation 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 regionat 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 federally 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?
Comments:
No
7.a-d. The project site for the tract map does not lie within in an area designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service as potential habitat for any Federally listed endangered species. The project will not result in
an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded.
Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of
plants, no native vegetation on the site. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at
this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of
animals or deteriorate existing habitat. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.e. The project will not result in an impact to tocally designated species. Locally designated species are
protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the
City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on
site, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.f. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. 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. No impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
'i\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new iES.doc
10
8. 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?
Potentially I
Potentially Slgmflcant Less Than
Sign~hcant UnlessMitigation S~gnificant
Impact Incorporate~ Impact
No
Comments:
8.a,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. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Ja.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Potentially
Potenteally Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
d,
f,
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Create 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?
c. 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?
/\TEMEC_FS101~VOLl\DeptS\PLANNING~CEQA~389pa98 new IES.doc
No
Impact
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?
Comments:
g.a.
9.b.
9,c,
9.d.
9.e, f.
9.g.
9.h.
The project is for the future development of single family homes in a residential area. The streets
leading to this subdivision are not transportation routes designated for commercial haulers who
may be transporting hazardous materials. Because the property and the surrounding area are and
will be used for single family homes, this project is not likely to create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The future development associated with this project will be single family homes. As such it is
reasonably expected that residents will not will not store or house large quantities of hazardous material
that would create 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. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The future use of this project site is designated for single family homes. This site is not within one-
quarter mile of an existing school. The operation of construction equipment and machinery during the
development of this site may emit some hazardous emissions and or handle some hazardous material.
However, these emissions and material should be of limited quantities over a short duration of time.
Although, this project site in within one-quarter mile of an existing school, it will not continue to emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste, therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
This project site is not nor is it located near a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would it create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or
private airstrip. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal,
The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede
emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
This project site in an area entirely surrounded by existing single family homes and is not adjacent
to any wildlands. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Issues and Supporting 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?
Significant ! Less Than
NO
irnDact
Comments:
10.a.
This project site is designated for the development of single family homes. The site is currently
vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during
construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run, However, long-
term noise generated by this project would be within the limits of the General Plan standards for
residential development. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
10.b.
This project site is designated for the development of single family homes. There will be no
activities on this site that would exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels. No impacts are anticipated.
10.c.
The project will ultimateIV result in the development of 24 single family homes which will create
some noise levels over that currently emanating from the vacant land, However, those noises will
not be substantial nor permanent and are not anticipated to create a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
Therefore, only less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
lO.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 1 O0 + DBA at
1 O0 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.
10.e. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore, people residing
in the project area will not be to excessive noise levels generated by an airport.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
13
11.
PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered Government services in any of the following areas:
issues and Supporting Inforrnat~on 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?
Potentially
Potent~aJly Significant Less Than
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks? ,/
Other public facilities?
No
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 these services. However, the project will contribute its fair share through the City's
Development Impact Fees 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.
\I, TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL 1 \DeDts~PLANN~ NG\CEQA\389pa98 new IES ,doc
12, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
C=
Issues and Supporting 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
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?
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 projecrs solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially
Signffican~
Less Then
Significant
No
ImpaCt
Comments;
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. No significant impacts are anticipated.
12.c.
The project will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities. The development of the
tract will require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities on site that will
connect to the existing system currently in place along Via La Vida and at the southwest corner of the
site. The design of the existing system is sufficient handle this project and will not require the
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Drainage fees are required by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to
reimburse the county 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
?,TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
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,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 proj.ect.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Potent,ally
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigateon Significant
IrnOact Incorporated Impact
No
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.
The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where
there is a scenic vista. The City does not have any designated scenic highways. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b-c.The project site has no unique physical attributes, therefore the future development will not
substantially degrade any scenic resources, or alter the visual character. When the residential
structures are built, the design of the homes will be reviewed by the Planning Department to ensure
compatibility with the surrounding area and a high quality architectural design. Therefore, no impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.d.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and
result in light and glare with the installation of new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to
impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The future development of the project site will be conditioned
to comply with Ordinance No. 655 Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution. After mitigation is performed,
less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL 1 \DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES,doc
16
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues and SuF~Dort~ng Information Sources
j 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?
i Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologicai
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
i Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than
S~9nihcant
Comments:
14 a thru d
The site is located in an area that has high archaelogical sensitivity pursuant to the General Plan
(Source 1, Figure, 5-6). Figure 5-7 of the General Plan indicates that the subject site is located within
an area of potential paleontological sensitivity. The Eastern Information Center of the University of
California at Riverside (UCR) has reviewed the project and has determined that a Phase I cultural
resource study identified no cultural resources. UCR recommends that if, during construction, cultural
resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified
archaeologist evaluated the finds and makes recommendations. Therefore, with appropriate mitigation
measures placed on the project and review of UCR, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a
result of this project.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Signihcant Less Than
Signihcant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
Issues and SuppoRing Information Sources
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or othe, 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?
No
Comments:
15.a,b. The project will have an impact on the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational
facilities, or affect existing recreational opportunities. However, the project will be conditioned to pay in-
lieu (Quimby) fees, which will be used for park land acquisition of future park land and/or improvements
of existing parks. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1 \Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new iES.doc
16. Agricultural Resources. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Potentrally
Smgnfficant Less Than
Unless M~tigauon I Significant
incorporated Impact
NO
Impact
Comments:
16a,c. The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic past has not ever
formerly been used for agricultural purposes. In addition this property is not considered prime or
unique of Farmland of statewide importance pursuant the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency or the City of Temecula's General Plan. Therefore,
there are no impacts related to this issue.
16b.
The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula, and the
site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. As a consequence there are no impacts related
to this issue.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE,
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
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?
b. 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?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will ,/'
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
No
Impact
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL 1 \Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES .doc
18
Comments;
17.a.
This site has been previously graded and is completely surrounded by residential ~evelopment and
does not contain any viable habitat for fish or wildlife species. This is an in-fill development and it
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 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. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
17.b.
The cumulative effects from the project are not considered significant because the subject site is
being development in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development
Code. 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 General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impact
related to the development of the 8 residential lots will not have a significant impact.
17.c.
The tract map and the future development of single family homes will not have environmental
effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The
subdivision is designed and will be developed consistent with the Development Code and General
Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
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.
18.a. No earlier analyses specifically related to this project site were use. The City's General Plan and Final
Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study
18.b. There were no earlier impacts which affected this project.
18.c. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached.
SOURCES
(Available in the Temecula Planning Department)
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_FS 101 \VOL1 \Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\389pa98 new IES.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
\%TEMEC_FS101~VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~389pa98,doc
21
Geoloclic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process'.
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA98-0389
(Tentative Parcel Map No. 29133)
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
Expose people to 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.
\\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1\DeptS%PLANNING\CEQA\447Oa98 M.M. Pgm..doc
1
Water
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
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).
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).
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and traffic
impacts.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Building and Safety Department.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\447pa98 M.M. Pgm..doc
2
Bioloaical Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but
not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $250. per unit of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
Noise
General impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
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.
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring Party:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees,
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School
District,
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School
District.
General Impact: A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities,
including roads.
Mitigation Measure: Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements, traffic
impacts, and public facilities.
Specific Process: Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by,
and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Building and Safety Department.
~\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\CEQA\447pa98 M.M. Pgm.,doc 3
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 Palemar 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.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\447pa98 M.M. Pgm..cioc
4
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 15, 2000
PLanning Application No. PA00-0041
An Amendment to the Adult Business Ordinance
Prepared By: Dave Hogan, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN
ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 5.09 OF
THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING ADULT BUSINESSES
(PLANNING APPLICATION PA00-O041 )"
BACKGROUND
The City of Temecula adopted an ordinance regulating adult businesses on October 13, 1998. Since
that time there have been no applications for an adult business under the City's Adult Business
Ordinance. However, the Council recently expressed a concern that some of the Ordinance's
requirements may not adequately restrict the access of minors to adult materials. After considering this
issue at their January 25, 2000 meeting, the City Council requested that the Planning Commission
consider an amendment to the Adult Business Ordinance to tighten up the requirements for adult
materials.
Based upon the concerns mentioned by the Council, the City Attorney has reviewed the Ordinance and
recommended that additional language be added to Subsection 5.09.040.L This Section describes the
conditions that must be present to be classified as an adult business.
Under the current provisions of the City's Adult Business Ordinance, a business which displays adult
material in more than 15% of the total display area or 100 square feet of display area, which ever is
less, is classified as an "adult business" and must comply with adult business regulations which require
that persons under the age of 18 years be excluded from the business.
The proposed amendment dassifies a business as an adult business if the business displays any adult
material which depicts specified anatomical areas or specified sexual activities on the exterior of its
packaging in a manner which is accessible to persons under the age of eighteen (18) years, even if less
than 100 square feet. This matedal shall not be deemed accessible to persons under the age of
eighteen (18) if an area within the business is established for the placement of such matedal and is
labeled "adults only," which is a regulation similar to the restrictions on adult videos currently imposed
by state law.
F:~Depts~LANNING\Ordinances%Adult Business~l PAO0 PC1 ,doc
1
The proposed amendment would add a new Paragraph 2 to Subsection L, Section 5.09.040 of the
Temecula Municipal Code, which defines when a business becomes an adult business and is subject
to the City's adult business regulations. The requested changes are shown in italicized and bolded
text. The revised Subsection L would read as follows:
"L. ReGular and substantial course of conduct and business shall mean any Adult
Business where one or more of the following conditions exist:
1. The area(s) devoted to the display of Adult Material exceeds
fifteen percent (15%) of the total display area of the business or 100 square feet which
ever is less. Display area shall include the area of the racks, or any other means to
display the adult materials, and the walkways and areas used to view or access the
displayed materials; or
2. Any Adult Material depicting Specified Anatomical Areas or
Specified Sexual Activities on the exterior of its packaging is displayed in · manner
which is eccess/151e to persons under the age of eighteen (18) years. For t~e purposes
of this Chapter such Adult Material shell not be deemed accessible to persons under
the age of eighteen (18) if an area within the business is established for the placement
of such material end is labeled 'adults only~ or
3. The business or concern presents any type of live entertainment
characterized by an emphasis on Specified Sexual Activity or Specified Anatomical
Areas, or performers, models or employees appearing in public dressed only in lingerie
on any four (4) or more separate days within any ninety (90) day period."
This amendment would further tighten the regulations conceming adult materials and would further
restdct the access of minors to potentially harmful material. A copy of the Commission Resolution is
included in Attachment No. 1. The draft ordinance is contained in Exhibit A of this Attachment.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 3
Exhibit A. - Proposed Ordinance - Blue Page 5
R:~ordinance~adult business~l PA00 PC1 ,doc
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-
F:%Depts~PLANNING\Ordinances%Adult Business~41PA00 PC1 .dec
3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 00-.__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 5.09 OF
THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING ADULT
BUSINESSES (PLANNING APPLICATION PA00-O041)"
WHEREAS, On November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, On October 13. 1998, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Ordinance
98-19 amending Chapter 5.09 to the Temecula Municipal Code to regulate adult businesses within the
City; and
WHEREAS. the City Council has identified a need to amend this Ordinance; 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, the Planning Commission, after a duly notice public hearing, considered the
proposed amendment; and,
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
PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 5.09 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING ADULT
BUSINESSES (PLANNING APPLICATION PA00-0041)" THAT IS SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE
FORM ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of March, 2000.
Ron Guerdero, 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 __ day of
,2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
F:~Depts\PLANNING\Ordinances%Adult Business%41PA00 PCl.doc
4
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
F:%Depts~PLANNING\Ordinances~Adult Business~A1 PAOO PC1 ,doc
5
EXHIBITA
ORDINANCE 2000-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 5.09 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING ADULT
BUSINESSES (PLANNING APPLICATION PA00-O041 THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 5.09,040.L of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"L. Reaular and substantial course of conduct and business shall mean any Adult Business
where one or more of the following conditions exist:
1. The area(s) devoted to the display of Adult Material exceeds
fifteen percent (15%) of the total display area of the business or 100 square feet which ever
is less. Display area shall include the area of the racks, or any other means to display the adult
materials, and the walkways and areas used to view or access the displayed materials; or
2. Any Adult Material depicting Specified Anatomical Areas or
Specified Sexual Activities on the exterior of its packaging is displayed in a manner which is
accessible to persons under the age of eighteen (18) years. For the purposes of this Chapter
such Adult Material shall not be deemed accessible to persons under the age of eighteen (18)
if an area within the business is established for the placement of such material and is labeled
"adults only"; or
3. The business or concern presents any type of live entertainment
characterized by an emphasis on Specified Sexual Activity or Specified Anatomical Areas, or
performers, models or employees appearing in public dressed only in lingerie on any four (4)
or more separate days within any ninety (90) day period."
SECTION 2. Severability. The City Council hereby decJares that the provisions of this
Ordinance are saverable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any santence,
paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining parts of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. 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 4. 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 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the
same to be posted as required by law.
F:%Depts%PLANNING\Ordinances~Adult Business~11 PA00 PC1 .doc
6
PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this th day of ,2000.
AI|~ST:
Jeff Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones. CMC
City Clerk
[sE q
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. 2000- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the th day of ,2000 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was
duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the th day of ,2000,
by the following vote:
AYES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
F:~Depts~PLANNING\Orclinances~Adult Business~41PA00 PC1 ,doc
7
ITEM #7
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 15, 2000
Planning Application No. PA99-0363 (Development Plan)
Prepared by: Denice Thomas, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-._.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0363, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN
17,654 SQUARE FOOT SPECULATIVE BUILDING ON 1.02 VACANT
ACRES LOCATED AT 42655 RIO NEDO AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 909-290-046.
2. ADOPT a Notjce of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0363 pursuant
to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
David Wakefield, DAVCON Development inc.
To design and construct an 17,654 square foot speculative building on
approximately 1.02 vacant acres.
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
42655 Rio Nedo
Light Industrial (LI)
North: Light Industrial (LI)
South: Light Industrial (LI)
East: Light industrial (LI)
West: Light Industrial (LI)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: Business Park (BP)
EXISTING LAND USE:Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
North: Existing Industrial Building
South: Existing Industrial Building
East: Existing Industrial Building
West: Existing Industrial Building
R:~STAFFRPT~o3PAggPC.doc
1
PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
Total Area:
Building Area (footprint):
Building Height:
Landscaped Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Lot Coverage:
Floor Area Ratio:
BACKGROUND
44,460 square feet (1.02 acres)
17,654 square feet
28 feet
8,800 square feet (20%)
27 vehicular, 2 handicapped, 2 bicycle, I motorcycle
31 vehicular, 2 handicapped, 2 bicycle, 2 motorcycle
0.40
0.40
The project was submitted to the Planning Department for review on September 8, 1999. The
Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the project on October 21, 1999. The project was
deemed complete on February 8, 2000.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Development Plan is a proposal to design and construct a tilt-up concrete speculative building.
The building is proposed to be 17,654 square feet and will be constructed on approximately 1.02
vacant acres within the Light Industrial (LI) Zone.
ANALYSIS
Site Desian
The project is located on the west side of Rio Nedo. Access to the site is provided from a driveway
located at the southeastern corner of the site from Rio Nedo. Parking for the project is located on
the south and west sides of the project. Further, the employee patio area (18 feet long by 9 feet
wide) is located in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the loading area and the trash
enclosure.
Parking
The applicant is proposing to provide 31 parking spaces for this site. The applicant is proposing
the following uses for this speculative building: 6% office (1,000 square feet), 67% warehouse
(11,854 square feet), and 27% manufacturing (4,800 square feet). Staff applied the parking
standards spedfled in the code based on the ratios provided by the applicant, which would require
28 parking spaces. Dudng the review process, staff had concerns with respect to the inadequacy
of the parking provided. Staff has worked with the applicant to find additional parking spaces, as
well as, suggesting a joint use agreement between the applicant and the existing industrial
business to the south, to no avail. Staff has reviewed approved site plans in the vicinity of this
project to see if the ratio of uses proposed is consistent or reasonable. Unfortunately, the parking
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~363pA99PC.doc
2
ratios for the approved site plans do not express consistent ratios, which provided very little
guidance. In an attempt to address the potential for insufficient parking situations, staff is
recommending as a condition of approval that the tenant of this speculative building must meet the
ratios set forth in this staff report or obtain the approval of the Planning Manager to exceed the
ratios set forth in this staff report.
Access, Traffic and Circulation
Access for the site will be taken from Rio Nedo. The Public Works Department has reviewed this
project and has not indicated that the traffic impacts will be significant. Emergency vehicles have
access to all parts of each building from the parking areas along the front, side and rear of the
building.
Architecture, Color and Materials
The design of the building breaks up the massing by recessing portions of the. building on the
eastern and southern elevations. Additionally, the applicant is proposing the use of spandrel glass
on the eastern elevation to provide interest. The one-story stucco building is colored with earth
tones. The exterior wall is beige with white trim and brown accents. The applicant is also
proposing the use of black window frames, black mullions and gray glass. In sum, the architectural
style of this industrial building is compatible with existing industrial buildings in the area,
Siqnaqe
Signage is not a part of this application. The review of signage will be conducted under a separate
application at a later date.
Landscapinq
Twenty percent (20%) of the site has been landscaped which is consistent with the 20% minimum
landscaping requirement in the LI (Light Industrial) zone.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0363 wilt be made pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332.
The proposed project is eligible for a CEQA exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA
Guidelines based on the following reasons:
The site is 1.02 acres which is less than the 5 acres required
The proposed development is consistent with the existing development in the area
The site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species
The site will be adequately served by public utilities and services
The speculative building is being approved pursuant to the zoning and general plan
designations for the site.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). Existing zoning for the
site is LI (Light Industrial). A variety of industrial uses are permitted within this zone, with the
approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05 of the Development Code. The project
as proposed, meets all minimum standards of and is consistent with the General Plan,
Development Code and the Design Guidelines
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRp"~363PA99pC.doc
3
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all applicable City ordinances,
standards, guidelines and policies. It is staffs opinion that the project is compatible with
surrounding developments in terms of design and quality.
FINDINGS
Development Plan
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for (BP)
Business Park development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the
development standards for (LI) Light Industrial development contained in the City's
Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be
physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The
project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and
local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CityWide
Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes.
The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other
associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and
safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as
conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines,
standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and
function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare.
The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are
no fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife
or habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an infill site. Furthermore,
grading has already occurred at the site, which is a portion of a larger industrial park. 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:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit A - Blue Page 8
Exhibits - Blue Page 18
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Maps
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. Elevations
G. Floor Plans
\%TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~363PA99PC.dOC
4
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
APPROVING PA99-0363
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
%\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP'~363PA99PC.doc
5
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA99-0363, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A 17,654 SQUARE FOOT SPECULATIVE
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 1.02 ACRES LOCATED AT 42655
RIO NEDO AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-
290-046-001.
WHEREAS, David Wakefield: filed Planning Application No. PA99-0363, in a manner in
accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99~0363 was processed including. but not limited
to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. PA99-0363 on March 15, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either
in support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission appmved Planning Application No. PA99-0363 subject to the conditions
after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA99-0363 conformed to the City
of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY 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 Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA99-0363 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section
17.05.010. F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for
(BP) Business Park development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development
standards for (LI) Light industrial development contained in the City's Development Code. The site
is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically suitable for the type and density
of commercial development proposed. The project as conditioned is also consistent with other
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the CityWide Design Guidelines, and fire and building codes.
B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and
other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety
of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for and as conditioned has
been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations
intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent
with the public health, safety and welfare.
C. The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There
is no fish or wildlife habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish or wildlife
habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an infill site. Furthermore, grading
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLl\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~363pA99pC,dOC
6
has already occurred at the site, which is a portion of a larger industrial park. 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. A Notice of Exemption for Planning Application
No. PA99-0363 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15332.
This Section allows exemptions for infili development projects that meet certain prescribed criteria.
The subject site complies with these criteria and therefore the exemption can be applied to this
project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA99-0363 (Development Plan) for the design and
construction of a 17,654 square foot speculative industrial building on 1.02 acres located at 42655
Rio Nedo, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-290-046 subject to the project specific
conditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 15th day of March 2000.
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 15th day of March,
2000, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~363PA99PC,doc
7
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA99-0363 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
~\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\Depts\PLANNING~STAFFRPT~363PA99PC.doc
8
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No: PA99-0363 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
Design and construct a 17,654 square foot speculative
industrial building on a 1.02 acre parcel
DIF Category:
Business Park/Industrial
Assessor's Parcel No:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
909-290-046
March 15, 2000
March 15, 2002
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of
seventy-eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file
the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and
California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason
of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions,
awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek
monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the
approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal
board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning
the Planning Application. City shall promptly notify the both the applicant and landowner
of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all
action the City deems to be in the best interest of the-City and its citizens in regards to such
defense.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~363pA99PC.doc
9
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D
(Site Plan), E (Landscape Plan), F (Elevations), and G (Floor Plans), contained on file with
the Community Development Department - Planning Division.
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
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
continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer
or any successors in interest.
,
All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being placed
below the lowest level of the surrounding parapet wall.
7. All compact parking spaces will be marked for "COMPACT CARS ONLY."
The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly
below and with Exhibit 'T' (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community
Development Department - Planning Division.
Primary wall:
Accent:
Trim:
Window Trim:
Glass:
Arizona White- Frazee 182
Beethoven Blue- Frazee 8486N
Wildcat- Frazee 8714M
Black
Gray
The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities,
which are screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines.
10.
The applicant shall group and screen all utilities per code requirements and to insure that
all utilities are coordinated and grouped together,
11.
The applicant shall either retain the existing mature street trees or replace the existing street
trees with a minimum 36 inch box size tree.
12. The applicant shall retain the mature plant material that is onsite.
13.
The applicant shall coordinate the proposed plant pallet to incorporate Pinus eldarica,
Dodonea viscosa, and Verbena.
14.
The applicant shall provide an additional tree to screen the loading area and revise the
spacing and trees utilized at the rear of the site to match the Pinus eldarica on the adjacent
site.
15. The applicant shall provide an additional wall vine on the east wall of the trash enclosure.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
16.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
17.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one
signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
\\TEMEC_FS101~VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP~363PA99pC.dOC
10
18.
The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D. E, F, G, and H", (Site Plan, Landscape Plan,
Elevations, Floor Plan, and Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of
approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning
Division staff, and shall submit five (7) full size copies, one (1) reduced 8.5"xl 1" copy of
Exhibits D through H, and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved
Exhibit "1" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F",
the colored architectural elevations, to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be
readable on the photographic prints.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
19. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
20.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "H", or as amended by these conditions.
The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
B.
C.
D.
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
21.
The applicant shall submit a use and parking ratio synopsis for staff review and approval
to ensure that the proposed tenant use for the building is compliant with the use and
parking ratios approved by the Planning Commission.
22.
An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any
signage net included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. A
separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the approved Exhibits
"D' and "F", or as amended by these conditions.
23.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning
Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation
system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
24.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to
guarantee the maintenance of the landscape plantings, in accordance with the approved
construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development
Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate of occupancy. After that
year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition
satisfactory to the Planning Manager, the bond shall be released.
25.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~363PA99pC.dOC
11
26.
27.
inches in area and shall be centered at the intedor end of the parking space at a minimum
height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the
off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously
stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for
persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense.
Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000."
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3
square feet in size,
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1, Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to
any Govemment 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
2. 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 pdor to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~363PA99PC.doc
12
8. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.
9. As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
b. Planning Department
c. Department of Public Works
10. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
11. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
12. 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,
13. 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
14. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard Nos. 400. 401 and 402.
d. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
e. 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.
f. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
15. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements in conformance with
applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of
Public Works.
a. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and
gutter, sidewalk and drive approach
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Sewer and domestic water systems
d. Under grounding of proposed utility distribution lines
16. The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance with
the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soil Engineer
shall issue a Final Soil Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
17, The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacent properby.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~363pA99pC.doc 13
18. 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.
19. The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and waive all fights 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
20. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
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.
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,
21.
22.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
All design components shall 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.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
5. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required, The
path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope,
travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans, (California Disabled
Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of extedor lighting, fire
alarm systems.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~363pA99pC.doc
14
10.
11.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29. Obtain the Division of the State
Architect recommendation for the accessible restroom dimensions for toddlers from the
Building Official, to implement in the building design.
Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
12.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
13. Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
14. Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
15. A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
16. Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
17. Show all building setbacks
18. Call for pro-inspection of all site accessibility features pdor to placement of concrete at (909)
694-6439
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.
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.
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 1850 GPM
for a total fire flow of 3350 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)
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)
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~363PA99PC.dOC
15
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. GVW with a minimum AC thickness
of .25 feet, ( CFC sec 902)
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)
10.
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)
11.
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)
12.
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)
13.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or I~uilding 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)
14.
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)
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~363pA99pC.doc
16
15.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement
for monitoring the sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an
fire alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central
station. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to
installation. (CFC Article 1 O)
16.
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)
17.
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)
18.
Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled
combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life safety
features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity class
and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtains,
Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing
high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code
Article 81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards, (CFC
Article 81 )
19.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the
developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or aboveground
tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, fiammable liquids or any other
hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Prevention
Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
OTHER AGENCIES
28.
29.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control
Distdct's transmittal dated November 8, 1999, 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.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated November 8, 1999, a copy of which
is attached.
30.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water
transmittal dated October 8, 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 shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Name
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~363PA99pC.dOC
17
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~363PA99PC,doc
18
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NOS. - PA99-0363
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 15, 2000
VICINITY MAP
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~363PA99PC.doc
19
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONE
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BUSINESS PARK (BP)
CASE NOS. - PA99-0363
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 15, 2000
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP'F~363PA99PC.doc
20
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA99-0363
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 15, 2000 SITE PLAN
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depfs\PLANNiNG\STAFFRp,T~363pA99pC,doc
21
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXISTING INDUSTR
oQ
® ®
I-~
CASE NO. - PA99-0363
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 15, 2000
LANDSCAPE PLAN
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~363PA99PC,doc
22
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA99-0363
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 15, 2000
ELEVATIONS
\~TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING%STAFFRpT~363pA99pC. doC
23
CITY OF TEMECULA
LUAP, EHC~JS~
F'
CASE NO. - PA99-0363
EXHIBIT - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 15, 2000
FLOOR PLANS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~363PA99PC.doc
24
Water
Ralph H. [)all2,
l)llUg Kulberg
Scott A MclnDrP
Jeffrey L, ~,llnkier
October 8, 1999
Denice Thomas, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
OCT 12 1999
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL NO. 46 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 21382-1
APN 909-290-046
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0363
Dear Ms. Thomas:
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.
!f you have =n,, quest!one, p!ease contact an Engineering Sepzices
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
99%SB:mc264%.c012-T3%FCF
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Plannin De artment
Post O ,ce ['o x 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Aae.tion: 7) F:'.N I r_,
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 9250;
909/955-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
51180,1
Re: PM 2 I R 7 ( ctq-Cs B)
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or offer land use cans in incorporated
cities. The District also does not an check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
offer flood hazard reports for sutcglcases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited
to items of spr--,ffic ~nterest to the District including District Master Draina e Plan fadlities offer ional flood
control and drains · fadlities which could be considered a logical componenPor extension of a masterr p~;n s tern
and Disffct Area Brainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general ns~re is
provided.
The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed proje~ct with respect to flood hazard, public
health and safety or any offer such issue:
v/' This prg. ject would not be impacted by Disffct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional ~nterast proposed.
This project involves Disffct Master Plan facilities. The District will acce t ownership of such facilities on
written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District stan~iP;rds. and Distdct plan check and
insp.ection will be required for Disffct 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
conmdered regional in nature and/or a I ical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District wJulcl°~ consider accepting ownership ot such tacJhbes on wntten request
of the City. Fad ities must be constructed to District standards, and..Dmfri.ct plan ch.eck and in. spOon will
be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees ~qll be required.
n I
/ This project is located within the limits of the Disfficfs ~ |' r ~ ~
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of~le actual
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project ma re uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water
Resources Con~ax~l aoerd. clearance for grading recordation, or offer final appreva/should not be given until the
City has determ ned that the project has been granted a permit or s shown to be exempt.
if this pro'ect involves a Federal EmergenCy Management Agency (FEMA mapped flood plain then the Ci should
require ~e applicant to provide all studies calculations plans and o~er reformation required to me~ FEMA
requirements, and should further require that the a plicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR)
pdor to grading, recordation or offer final approva~Pof the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMRS pdor to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mappod 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~;mia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean P~ater Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or written correspondence from these a encies
indicating the pro'ect is exempt from these requtrements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quail Ceg~cation
may be required J~rom the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of ~e Corps 404
permit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: t t-,~
Ire:w~dly IdoYelld)er 8, 1999 i.:31m -- Peee z'
TO:
FROM
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMF-ANT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: Noveanbec g, 1999
CITY OF TEIVlECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLOT PLAN NO, PA99-0363
The Department of Environmental Health has r~viewed the Plot Plan No. PA99-0363 attd has no
objections. Sanitary scwer and water services nmy be availabl¢ in thi~ area.
PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL fo~ health clearance, the following itcms are
a) "W~l-~rve" letlets fxom the appropriat~ water and sevvering agencies.
Three complete sets of plaaa.s for each food esUlbli~hment (to include vending machine) ~ffi b~
submitt~ including a fixture schedule, a ~ Schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to
ensure cOmpliance with the Ca~fornia Uniform Retail Food Facilltie~ I.~w. For specific
t~ferenc~. please contact Food Facility Plan e~aminel~ at (909) 694-5022),
c) A clearance lett~ from the ~a_Ta~dous Services Matt~dals Management Branch (909) 694-5055
will be required indica~g that the project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage lanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
· Hazardous Wsste Generator Services, Ordinimce#6153.
· Emeq~ey Respo~ Plans Disclosure (in aceordance with Ordinance # 651.2.)
· Waste r~luction manaLZ~L
d) A letter from the Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Cottect~on/LgA),
(9O9) 955~8980
NOTE:
Any current additional requiremen~ not cove~d, can be applicable m ~ of Building
Plan ~ticw for final Departmeat of Environmental Health Clearance.
Doug Thompson, Ha~rdous Materials '
ITEM #8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 15, 2000
Planning Application No. PA99~0496 (Development Plan)
Prepared by: Denice Thomas, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000L
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0496, A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND
OPERATION OF A 12,758 SQUARE FOOT BANK BUILDING ON 1.23
VACANT ACRES LOCATED AT 40440 MARGARITA ROAD WITHIN
PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN, AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-330-001-1.
2. MAKE a Determination of Consistency with a project for which an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously certified and findings that
a subsequent EIR is not required;
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Dean Davidson, Davidson & Allen, Architects
To design, construct, and operate a 12,758 square foot bank building
on approximately 1.23 gross acres of vacant land.
40440 Margarita Road
Campos Verdes Specific Plan- Community Commercial
North: Community Commercial
South: Community Commercial
East: Community Commercial
West: Community Commercial
Community Commercial
Vacant
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNiNG\STAFFRP~496PA99PC.dOC
1
SURROUNDING LAND
USES:
Total Area:
Building Area (footprint):
Building Height:
Landscaped Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Lot Coverage:
Floor Area Ratio:
BACKGROUND
North: Winchester Market Place Shopping Plaza
South: Vacant
East: Lowe's Hardware Store
West: Temecula Commons Shopping Plaza
PROJECT STATISTICS (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
53,579 square feet (1.23 acres)
12,758 square feet
33 feet
11,003 square feet (21%)
43 vehicular, 2 handicapped, 2 bicycle, I motorcycle
54 vehicular, 2 handicapped, 2 bicycle, 1 motorcycle
0.24
0.24
The project was submitted to the Planning Department for review on December 8, 1999. The
Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the project on January 6, 2000. The project was
deemed complete on February 23, 2000.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Development Plan is a proposal to design, construct, and operate a bank building. The
building is proposed to be 12,758 square feet and will be constructed on approximately 1.23 vacant
acres within Planning Area 4 of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan which is zoned for Community
Commercial (CC) uses.
ANALYSIS
Site Desloin
The project is located at the southeast comer of the Margarita RoadNVinchester Road intersection.
Access to the site is provided from Verdes Lane (Lowe's service drive). Parking for the project is
generally located at the northerly portion of the site. The Campos Vetdes Specific Plan calls for this
area to develop with the Village Overlay Design Guidelines in mind, which does not allow for a sea
of parking with a building in the middle. The applicant is proposing a site design, which odents the
building toward Margarita Road, giving it viewing prominence and orienting the parking away from
view from Margarita Road. By orienting the building in such a way, the parking is screened from
view and the building provides an aesthetically pleasing feature for the site.
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~496PA99PC.dOC
2
Parkinq
The applicant is proposing to provide 54 vehicle spaces, 2 handicapped spaces, 2 bicycle spaces,
and I motorcycle space, for this site,. The amount of parking required by code is as follows: 43
vehicle spaces, 2 handicapped spaces, 2 bicycle spaces, and 1 motorcycle space. The applicant
is proposing parking in excess of what is required.
Access, Traffic and Circulation
Access for the site will be taken from Verdes Lane. The applicant is also proposing to have a joint
access that allows travel to the adjacent site. The Public Works Department has reviewed this
project and has not indicated that the traffic impacts will be significant. Emergency vehicles have
access to all parts of each building from the parking areas along the front, side and rear of the
building.
Architecture, Color and Materials
The applicant is proposing curvilinear features for this two-story bank building. The use of glass
block and split faced concrete provide not only visual interest but textural interest as well. The color
palette for this project consists of colors such as gold, clear and bronze glass, warm and natural
gray concrete block, with fudge, smoky, and sour cream paints and trims. In sum, the architectural
style of this building is compatible with the design guidelines for commercial development, as well
as the design standards set forth in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
Signaqe
Signage is not a part of this application. The review of signage will be conducted under a separate
application at a later date. However, staff has been in contact with the applicanrs sign contractor
regarding specific signage requirements of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Additionally, the
applicant has indicated to staff the area where the wall mounted sign is to be placed.
Landscaping
The Specific Plan requires a 32 foot wide Land Development Zone (LDZ) which, consists of a 6 foot
concrete sidewalk, a 20 foot wide tuff or groundcover parkway, and a 6 foot wide shrub or
groundcover area. The applicant has met this requirement. Further, the Campos Verdes Specific
Plan requires the site to have 15 percent (8,037 square feet) of the site to be landscaped.
Including the shrub and ground cover areas of the LDZ, the applicant has provided 11,003 square
feet of landscaping which exceeds the amount required by Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
The Planning Commission has approved the EIR and its amendments. According to the CEQA
Guidelines Article 11, Section 15162, no subsequent EI R's are required when an EIR has been
adopted if the following conditions do not exist:
Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~496PA99PC,doc
3
The applicant is proposing a use that is designated by the Campos Verdes Specfic Plan
to be acceptable for this Planning Area. During the preparation of the EIR and
subsequent amendments, the potential impacts of this use were reviewed. The applicant
is not proposing to increase the severity of the use and therefore no significant adverse
impacts are anticipated which would warrant a revised E|R.
Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to involvement of new
significant effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
impacts.
The circumstances that existed at the time of EIR preparation have not changed
significantly. The development that has occurred in the vicinity of the project is
consistent with the Campos Verdes Specific Plan as well as the Development Code and
the General Plan.
New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was adopted is
present.
The project has no significant effects that weren't discussed in the previous EiR. The
significant effects the proposed project aren't substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR. No new mitigation measures are proposed for the project.
Based on the previous discussion, it has been found that the project will require no further
environmental review pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is CC (Community Commercial). Existing
zoning for the site is CC (Community Commercial). A variety of neighborhood commercial uses
are permitted within this zone, with the approval of a Development Plan pursuant to Chapter 17.05
of the Development Code. The project as proposed and conditioned, meets all minimum standards
of and is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines, and the
Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project has been determined by staff to be consistent with all applicable City ordinances,
standards, guidelines and policies. It is staffs opinion that the project is compatible with
surrounding developments in terms of design and quality.
FINDINGS
Development Plan
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for (CC)
Community Commercial development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the
development standards for (CC) Community Commercial development contained in the
City's Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to
be physically suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The
project as conditioned is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and
local ordinance, including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CityWide
Design Guidelines, the Campos Vetdes Specific Plan, fire and building codes.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~496PA99PC.doc
4
The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and other
associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and
safety of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for, and as
conditioned has been found to be consistent with, all applicable policies, guidelines,
standards and regulations intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and
function in a manner consistent with the public health, safety and welfare.
The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Thero are
no fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish, wildlife
or habitat off-site. The site is Surrounded by development and is an infill site. Furthermore,
grading has already occurred at the site. The project will not individually or cumulatively
have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and
Game Code.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit A - Blue Page 9
Exhibits - Blue Page 19
A. Vicinity Map
B, Zoning Map
C. General Plan Maps
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
F. Elevations
G. Floor Plans
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~496PA99PC.doc
5
A'R'ACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
APPROV|NG PA99-0496
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~496PA99PC.doc
6
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA99o0496, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A 12,758 SQUARE
FOOT BANK BUILDING ON 1.23 ACRES LOCATED AT 40440
MARGARITA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 910-330-001.
WHEREAS, Dean Davidson, filed Planning Application No. PA99-0496, in a manner in
accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0496 was processed including, but not limited
to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. PA99-0496 on March 15, 2000, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by
law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either
in support or in opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA99-0496 subject to the conditions
after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA99-0496 conformed to the City
of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY 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 Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA99-0496 (Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings as required by Section
17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected for
(CC) Community Commercial development in the City of Temecula General Plan, as well as the
development standards for (CC) Community Commercial development contained in the City's
Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and found to be physically
suitable for the type and density of commercial development proposed. The project as conditioned
is also consistent with other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance, including the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CityWide Design Guidelines, The Campos
Verdes Specific Plan, fire and building codes.
B. The overall design of the project, including the site, building, parking, circulation and
other associated site improvements, is consistent with and intended to protect the health and safety
of those working in and around the site. The project has been reviewed for and as conditioned has
been found to be consistent with all applicable policies, guidelines, standards and regulations
intended to ensure that the development will be constructed and function in a manner consistent
with the public health, safety and welfare.
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~496PA99PC.doc
7
C. The design of the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There
is no fish or wildlife habitat on the project site, and the project will not affect any fish or wildlife
habitat off-site. The site is surrounded by development and is an in~ll site. Furthermore, grading
has already occurred at the site, which is a portion of a larger industrial park. 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 Environmental Impact Report has previously
been prepared and approved by the Planning Commission. Whereas the conditions under which
the EIR and amendments were prepared have not changed substantially and the project is
consistent with the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, the EIR and the EIR amendment, pursuant to
Article 11, Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act, no further environmental
review if required for the proposed project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA99-0496 (Development Plan) for the design,
construction, and operation of a 12,758 square foot bank building on 1.23 vacant acres located at
40440 Margarita Road, and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 910-330-001 subject to the project
specific conditions set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 15th day of March 2000.
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 15th day of March,
2000, by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
\~TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~96PA99PC.dOC
8
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PA99-0496 DEVELOPMENT PLAN
%\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'~496pA99pC.dOC
9
EXHIBIT A
CITY OFTEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No: PA99-0496 (Development Plan)
Project Description:
Design, construct, and operate a 12,758 square foot bank
building on a 1.23 acre parcel
DIF Category:
Business Park
Assessor's Parcel No:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
910-330-001
March 16, 2000
March 16, 2002
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of
seventy-eight Dollars ($78.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file
the Notice of Exemption as provided under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and
California Code of Regulations Section 15062. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason
of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Requirements
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnity, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions,
awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside. void, annul, seek
monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the
approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal
board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning
the Planning Application. City shall promptly notity the both the applicant and landowner
of any claim, action. or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all
action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such
defense.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this
approval.
\%TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRP"FA96PA99pC.doc
10
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibits D
(Site Plan), E (Landscape Plan), F (Elevations), G (Floor Plans), and H(Color/material)
contained on file with the Community Development Department - Planning Division.
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasonable
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
continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer
or any successors in interest.
All mechanical and roof equipment shall be fully screened from public view by being placed
below the lowest level of the surrounding parapet wall.
7. All compact parking spaces will be marked for "COMPACT CARS ONLY."
The colors and materials for the project shall substantially conform to those noted directly
below and with Exhibit "1" (Color and Material Board), contained on file with the Community
Development Department - Planning Division.
Primary wall:
Secondary wall colors:
Doors & Window Trim:
Aluminum Storefront:
Glass (Typical):
Glass (Block):
Glass (Bank Lobby):
Natural Grey Scored Precision Concrete Block
Warm Grey Split Face Concrete Block
Vista Paint- Sour Cream
Vista Paint- Fudge
Gold Eclipse
Bronze
Clear Eclipse
The construction landscape drawings shall indicate coordination and grouping of all utilities,
which are screened from view per applicable City Codes and guidelines.
10.
The applicant shall group and screen all utilities per code requirements and to insure that
all utilities are coordinated and grouped together.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
11.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
12.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be provided
by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and return one
signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for their files.
13.
The applicant shall revise Exhibits "D, E, F, G, a~nd H", (Site Plan, Landscape Plan,
Elevations, Floor Plan, and Color and Material Board) to reflect the final conditions of
approval that will be provided by the Community Development Department - Planning
Division staff, and shall submit five (7) full size copies, one (1) reduced 8.5"xl 1" copy of
Exhibits D through H, and two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of approved
Exhibit "H" (Color and Materials Board) and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "F",
the colored architectural elevations, to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division for their files. All labels on the Color and Materials Board and Elevations shall be
readable on the photographic prints.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~496PA99PC.doc
11
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
14. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
15.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be submitted to the
Community Development Department - Planning Division for approval. These plans shall
conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "H", or as amended by these conditions.
The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. The
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The cover page shall identify
the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. The plans shall be
accompanied by the following items:
A=
B.
C.
D.
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
16.
An Administrative Development Plan application for signage shall be required for any
signage not included on Exhibits "D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. A
separate building permit shall be required for all signage identified on the appmved Exhibits
"D" and "F", or as amended by these conditions.
17.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Planning
Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation
system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
18.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager, to
guarantee the maintenance of the landscape plantings, in accordance with the approved
construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be flied 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.
19.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying
the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square
inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum
height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or
centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the-parking space finished grade, ground,
or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the
off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously
stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles parked in designated accessible spaces not
displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for
persons with disabilities may be towed away at owner's expense.
Towed vehicles may be reclaimed by telephoning 909 696-3000."
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~496PA99PC.dOC
12
20.
21.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3
square feet in size.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the 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
22. A Grading Permit for either rough and/or precise grading, including all on-site fiat work and
improvements, shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way.
23.
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.
24.
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
25. 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.
26.
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.
27.
A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report
shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
28.
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.
29.
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
\\TEMEC_FS101%VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRP~496PA99PC.doc
13
30.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
31.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
32.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-site
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
33.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check
or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan
fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
34. Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City of
Temecula Standards subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The following design criteria shall be observed:
35.
a. flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C,C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C.
paving.
b. driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees,
d. 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.
e, All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
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,
36.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan"
in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01,
37.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
38. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
39.
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
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.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~496PA99PC,doc
14
40.
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.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
All design components shall 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. 855 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and other
outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building
and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Building & Safety Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School
Mitigation Fees.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any construction
work.
Disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building is required. The
path of travel shall meet the California Disabled Access Regulations in terms of cross slope,
travel slope stripping and signage. Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access
Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. Provide
all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1998)
Show path of accessibility from parking to furthest point of improvement.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire
alarm systems.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 1998
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29Provide appropriate stamp of a
registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review.
Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing schematic
and mechanical plan for plan review.
Truss calculations that are stamped by the engineer of record and the truss manufacturer
engineer are required for plan review submittal.
Provide precise grading plan for plan check submittal to check for handicap accessibility.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~496PA99PC.doc
15
55.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standard and any block walls if not on the approved
building plans, will require separate approvals and permits.
56. Show all building setbacks
57. Submit exiting analysis at plan review
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.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
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.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix ILIA, Table A-Ill-A-1. The
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivedng 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 Ili-
A)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902)
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~496PA99PC.dOc
16
65.
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)
66.
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 )
67.
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)
68.
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 canters, businesses shall post the
suite address on the rear door(s). (CFC 901.4.4)
69.
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)
70.
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)
71.
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)
OTHER AGENCIES
72.
Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control
District's transmittal dated January 12, 2000, 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.
73.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated December 29, 1999 a copy of which
is attached.
74.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water
transmittal dated December 21, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~496pA99pC.dOC
17
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_FS101\VOLl\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRp"R496pA99pC.doC
18
A'R'ACHMENT NO. 3
EXHIBITS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING%STAFFRPT%496PA99PC.dOC
19
CITY OFTEMECULA
PROJECT SITE
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
CASE NOS. - PA99~0496
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 15, 2000
VICINITY MAP
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'F~496PA99PC.dOC
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONE
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - BUSINESS PARK (BP)
CASE NOS. - PA99-0496
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 15, 2000
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~496PA99PC.dOC
CtTy OFTEMECULA
I I/
CASE NO. - PA99°0496
SITE
\,,TE. MEC_FS101WOLI\DePts\PLANNtNG\STAFFRPT\496PA99PC'd°c
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA99-0496
EXHIBIT -E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 15, 2000
LANDSCAPE PLANS
~\TEMEC_FS101XVOL1\Depts\pLANNiNG\STAFFRpT~496pA99pC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO, - PA99-0496
EXHIBIT - F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 15, 2000
ELEVATIONS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~496PA99PC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
® 0
0 0 0 ® ®
CASE NO. - PA99-0496
EXHIBIT - {g}
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MARCH 15, 2000
FLOOR PLANS
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRpT~496pA99pC.doc
DAVID P. ZAPPE
Gencra~ Manager-Chief Engiaccr
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Plannin De artme t
0~n,·
Postg 3
Temecula, Califomia 92589-9033
Attention: 7)EN I C.F~ 7'h~M~·
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/955-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
51180.1
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The Distdct also does not lan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard repOrts for sucg cases. Distnct comments/racommendations for such cases are normally limited
to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Draina · Plan radiities, other re ional flood
control and draina · radiities which could be considered a logical componenPor extension of a master b~l~;n s stem,
and Disthct Area Brainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general ns-'~usra is
provided.
The Distdct has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way
constitute or imply Distdct approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard public
health and safety or any other such issue:
This prpject would not be impacted by Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional interest proposed.
This project involves Distdct Master Plan facilities. The Disthct will acce t ownership of such facilities on
wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct stan~P~rds, and Distdct plan check and
inspection will be require:l for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a I ical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District wolul°~ consider accepting ownershieot such facJllbes on written request
of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distdct standards, and D~sthct plan check and inspection will
be required for District acceptance. Plan check, insbeddon and administrative fees will be required.
v/ This project is located within the limits Of the Disthct's U~ ' Ci~E;Er, fE;HC/_.QLfr V'/I Area Y
check or money order only to ~e Flood Control District pdor ~oF issuance of building or gradin permits
whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of ~he actua}
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project ma re uire a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES permit from the State Water
Reso. s coo o nard. C earance gradi.g. re ordation. or other .na ep.ova/sho. d not be given ... the
City has determined that the project has b~en granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
if this pro'act involves a Federal Emergen,~'y Management Agency (FEMA map_pad flood plain then the Ci should
require t~e applicant to provide all studies, calculatioos plans and o~ner reformation r_eq_uired to m;e~t~ FEMA
requirements and should further require that the a piicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision CLOMR)
pdor to grad ng, recordat on or other fina approva~PoPf the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR(~ prior to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project the City should require the a ticant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department o~' Fish and Game and a Clean Pt~atar Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written co espondence from these a encies
indicating the prpject is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Se,%jon 401 Water Quail Cer~cation
may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board pdor to issuance of ~e Corps 404
permit.
,, KH
C;
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: I- I?..-~,O(.?~
COUNTY OF RIVERSh, E
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~~mental Health Specialist
PLOT PLAN NO. PA99-0496
DATE: December 29. 1999
1. Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA99-0496 and has no ob. jections.
PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, the followlag are required:
a) "xA"ill-serve" letters li'om the appropriate water aad sewering districts.
b) If there are to be an.~ food establishments. (including rending machines1. three complete sets of plaas
fro' each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule. a finish schedule aad a
plumblag schedule in order to ensure compliance with the Calilbrnia Uniform Retail Food Facilities
kaxx 2. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan Examiners at (909) 358-5172.
c) If there are to be anx hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Depamnent of Environmeatal
Ilealth ltazardous Materials Management Brauch (909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the
project has been cleared for:
· Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
· Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
· Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.2).
· Waste reduction management.
d) Contact the Permit Assistance Center at (909) 955-1883 or (909) 937-0723 li>r other Regional. State,
and Federal requirements. FOOD STORAGE ONLY: Contact Lester Low, State Health at (909)
467-3681.
Department of Environmental Health portion due at Planning Department lbr re.gular submittal ~ill be
$136.00, which is a deposit-based fi~e.
Department of Environmental Health fee due at Plan Check submittal will be $ 31.00 if sewered. Add
$195.00 if sub-surface disposal system is used.
CH:dr
(909) 955-8980
cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Branch
December 21, 1999
Denice Thomas, Case Planner
City of Temecula .
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
DEC ~ ~ 1999
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP 29470
A PORTION OF APN 910-330-001
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0496
Dear Ms. Thomas:
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 that 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
Development Engineering Manager
99%SB:mr195\F012-T6%FCF
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR
35102. 35.104 ADA Title II]
CALL TO ORDER:
Flag Salute:
Roll Call:
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
MARCH 15, 2000- 6:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2000-011
Commissioner Mathewson
Mathewson, Telesio, Webster, Chairman Guerriero
Fahey absent
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each.
If you desire to speak to the Commission about an item no__t 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 for the record.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Commission Secretary prior to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the Planning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
Approval of A<~enda - APPROVED 3-1-1, TELESIO ABSTAINED AND FAHEY ABSENT
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of March 15, 2000.
F:\DEPTS~PLANNiNG~lancomm~agendas~2000\3-15-00.doc
1
2 Minutes - APPROVED 3-1-1, TELESIO ABSTAINED AND FAHEY ABSENT
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Minutes from January 19, 2000
3 Director's Hearin~l Update ~ RECEIVE AND FILE
RECOMMENDATION
3.1 Receive and File
COMMISSION BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you
may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the Commission Secretary at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
4
Planning Application No. PA99-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) Marclarita Canyon,
located adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town Front Street
and HiGhway 79 South/future Western Bypass - John DeGan.qe - APPROVED 3-1-1,
GUERRIERO ABSTAINED AND FAHEY ABSENT
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-011
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28627), A
REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 37 ACRE PARCEL INTO 11
COMMERCIAL LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT LOCATED
ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 15, SOUTHWEST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND
HIGHWAY 79 (S) I FUTURE WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR
(ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 922-210-047);
4.2 Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627);
4.3 Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA97-0307
Tentative Parcel Map 28627.
F:\DEpTS\PLANNING~plancornm\agendas~O00\3-15-00.doc
2
5
Plannincl Application No. PA98-0389 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29133), located on the east
side of Ynez Road, 707 feet south of Calle Halcon and Ynez Road - Thomas Thomslev -
CONTINUED TO APRIL 19, 2000 4-0-1, FAHEY ABSENT
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA98-0389 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29133)
LOCATED AT THE EAST SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, 707 FEET
SOUTH OF CALLE HALCON AND YNEZ ROAD AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-060-024;
5.2 Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA98-0389
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29133);
5.3 Adopt the Mitigation Monitodng Program for Planning Application No. PA98-0389
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29133).
Planning Application No. PA00-0041 (An Amendment to the Adult Business Ordinance),
Citvwide - Dave Hoean - APPROVED 4-0-1, FAHEY ABSENT
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-0'12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT
AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING
PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 5.09 OF THE TEMECULA
MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING ADULT BUSINESSES
LOCATED CITYWIDE (PLANNING APPLICATION PA00-0041 )"
7
Plannine Application No. PA99-0363 (Development Plan). located at 42655 Rio Nedo -
Denice Thomas - APPROVED 4-0-1, FAHEY ABSENT
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-013
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA99-0363, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN
F:\Dl:PTS\PLANNING~plancomm~agendas~OOO~3-15-OO.doc
3
AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN 17,654 SQUARE FOOT
SPECULATIVE BUILDING ON 1.02 VACANT ACRES LOCATED
AT 42655 RIO NEDO AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NO. 909-290-046;
7.2 Adopt a Notice of Exemption for Planning Application No. PA99-0363 pursuant to
Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.
8
Planning Application No. PA99-0496 (Development Plan), located at 40440 Mar.qadta
Road - Denice Thomas - APPROVED 4-0-1, FAHEY ABSENT
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-014
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA99-0496, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN,
CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION OF A 12,758 SQUARE
FOOT BANK BUILDING ON 1.23 VACANT ACRES LOCATED
AT 40440 MARGARITA ROAD WITHIN PLANNING AREA 4 OF
THE CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-330-001.
COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
Planners Institute
Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Apdl 5, 2000
F:~DEPTS~PLANNING~plancomm~agendas~00\3-15-00.doc
4