HomeMy WebLinkAbout040704 PC Agenda
fI". 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 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
APRIL 7, 2004 - 6:00 P.M.
........
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 2004-015
CALL TO ORDER
Flag Salute:
RollCall:
Commissioner Olhasso
Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, and Telesio
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minut,~s is provided so members of the public may address the Commission
on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes
each. If you desin~ to speak to the Commission about an item not on the Agenda, a
salmon colored "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the
Commission Secretary.
When you are CallE!d 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 QIiQr to the Commission addressing that item. There is a three
(3) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBL (~
All matters listed LInder 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 Pllanning Commission request specific items be removed from the
Consent Calendar for separate action.
1 Agenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of April 7, 2004
A: \P LAN COM MIA geodes \2004104-0 ì. -04. doc
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of February 18, 2004
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 Sel:retary at, or prior to, the public hearing.
New Items
3 Plannina Application No. PA03-0227 and PA03-0625 a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide
4.28 acres into 60 sinale-familv residential lots averaaina 3.000 SQuare feet. and a
Development Plan to consider the architectural desian and placement of proposed homes.
located north of Harveston Lake. west of Loop Drive. and east of the Lakefront Cottaaes
tract. Donald Hazen. Principal Planner CReauest a continuance to April 21. 2004),
4 Plannina Application No. PA03-0671 a Development Plan to construct. establish and
operate a sinale-stolv Red Lobster Restaurant buildina totalina 7.567 SQuare feet on 1.6
acres. located on the, northeast corner of Overland Drive and Promenade Wav. Matt Harris.
Associate Planner.
5 Plannina Application No. PA03-0321 a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 3.2 acres into 10
sinale-farnilv residential lots. located at the southeast corner of Rancho Vista Road and
Ynez Road. Dan Lona. Associate Planner
6 Plannina Application No. PA02-0717 a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to
construct and operate a wireless telecommunications facility to include a 56-foot hiah
artificial palm tree and four (4) outdoor eQuipment cabinets within a 310 SQuare foot block
screen wall. located at 31575 Enfield Lane. Stuart Fisk. Associate Planner.
7 Plannina Application No. PA03-0679 a Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a 1.670
SQuare foot facility mntina computer time for the use of word processina software and for
internet use. includina internet camino. located at 40820 Winchester Road. Suite 1040.
Stuart Fisk. Associatø Planner.
8 Plannina Application No. PA03-0677 a Development Plan to construct two. two-stOry
professional office buildinas totalina 37.520 SQuare feet on an undeveloped 3.2 acre site
within the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan Area. located at the southeast corner of Pauba
Road and Maraarita I~oad. DonaldHazen. Principal Planner.
R:\PLANCOMMlAgendas\2004\04 -07 -04.doc
2
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
PLANNING DIRECTOR'!) REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Ne:d regular meeting: April 21,2004
Council Chambers
43~!00 Business Park Drive
Ternecula, CA 92590
R: IP LANC OM MlAgendas \2004104- 07 -Q4. doc
3
.
.
ITEM #2
.
.
.
.
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 18, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Ternecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at 6:01 P.M., on
Wednesday, February 113, 2004, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Chiniaeff led the audience in the Flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioners Guerriero, Mathewson, Olhasso, Chiniaeff, and Chairman
Telesio.
Absent:
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Aaenda
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the Agenda of February 18, 2004
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the Minutes of January 21, 2004
3 Director's Hearina Case Update
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the Director's Hearing Case Update for January 2004
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3.
Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
R:\MinutesPC\O21804
I
I
4 Public Necessity and Convenience Findinas (41715 Enterprise Circle. North. Suite 208. Z!C.
Auctions) I
!
,
Director of Planning Ubnoske presented a staff report (as per agenda material), relaying the
following: !
COMMISSION BUSINESS
That the applicant requested to create an office site for ZC Auctions; I
I
. That staff contacted Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) and it was determined that w~ile
no on-site sales or storage of any type will occur, the findings of public convenience
and/or necessity will be required. :
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
I
Mr. Michael Brewer, 41715 Enterprise Circle North, the applicant for ZC Auctions, noted t~at
wine will not be stored at this location.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff's recommendation to make Ihe
findings of public convenience and/or necessity. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion
and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. '
New Items
5 Plannina Application No. PA03-0721 A proposal to chanae the General Plan desianation
from Very Low (VU Density Residential to Professional Office (PO). a Zonina Map
amendment from Very Low (VU Densitv Residential to Planned Development Overlay
(PDO). and a Development Code amendment to include Sections 17.22.190 throuah
17.22.198. DePortola Planned Development Overlay District. on 8 parcels totalina 21.7
acres. located at the northwest and southwest corner of DePortola and Maraarita Roads in
the City of Temecula (APN's 959-050-003.004.007.008 & 959-080-002. 003. 004. 005) !
By way of PowerPoint, Associate Planner Powers clarified the staff report (as per age~da
material), highlighting the existing requirements of the Professional Office Zone and the
proposed DePotola Road Plan Development Overlay District (PDO); advising that iylr.
Malekzadeh, (property owner of property located southwest corner of Pio Pico and Marga~ita
Road) has requested to be included in the proposed Zone Change, and noting that staff would
not support his request. I
I
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Principal Planner Hogan noted that staff would not support the
inclusion of Mr. Malekzadeh's property, which would further expand commercial development to
the north along Margarita Road. :
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
Concurring with the staff report, Mr. Markham, 30105
Ranchitos HOA, highlighted the following concerns:
Cabrillo Avenue, representing Lios
I
¡
I
!
R:\MinutesPClO21804
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
Connecting of the existing equestrian trails with the Los Ranchitos Homeowners
Association trail system;
Buffering with landscape berms through the use of 24" to 48" and shrubs adjacent to
residential land u¡:es;
Restricting De Portola Road to rural road section with no streetlights, sidewalks, or curb
and gutter.
In response to the Commissioners, Mr. Markham noted the following:
. That the hospital will have a 5' or 6' height landscape berm along De Portola Road
frontage as well as along the vacated Pio Pico Road area;
. That although the Homeowners Association (HOA) is not requesting a circulation
element change, it is being requested that the PDO include verbiage such as optional
interroadway standard may be used in rural semi-rural areas;
. That although reluctant, the HOA would concur with the proposed change for the two
parcels north of DePortola Road.
Mr. McNeff, 45627 Clubhouse Drive, representing Valley Christian Fellowship, relayed support
of the proposed recommondation and thanked the Planning Commission, staff, and citizens for
Their associated efforts and requested that reasonable access be provided to the church
property.
Ms. Carol Marsden, 30955 De Portola Road, expressed concern with her property being
commercially surrounded on two sides if this request were approved.
Relaying his desire to retain the rural setting, Mr. Evan Harbuttle, 31655
expressed concern with traffic and traffic patterns, and noted that Santiago Homeowners
Association (HOA) haVl6 expressed objection to commercial property abutting residential
properties.
Mr. Kenneth Ray, 3164~' Pio Pico Road, President of the Santiago Rancho HOA, noted the
following:
That the homeowners' would object to commercial properties abutting association
properties;
. That the association would support Los Ranchitos Homeowners Associations request of
no commercial olJtlet onto De Portola Road;
That the two lots north of De Portola Road should not be included in the
recommendation.
At this time, the Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Chiniaeff expressed issues of concern with further extending the zoning to the
north and ensuring the preservation of the character of the area.
R:\MinutesPC\O21804
3
.
Assistant City Attorney Curly further clarified Planned Development Overlays (PDO).
Commissioner Mathewson concurred with Commissioner Chiniaeff with regard to limiting
extension of the two northerly parcels requesting that sufficient setbacks be imposed for tr~sh
enclosures for the accessory structure and requesting that the rear yard setbacks from 25' to ~O'
on parcels adjacent to residentials. I
I
¡
Expressing her opposition with the proposal, Commissioner Olhasso stated that a hospital in Ihe
proposed area will be adding to existing traffic congestion and relayed the importance! of
maintaining the large lots, open space, equestrian trails, and the character of the area. i
Respecting the development of this project and relaying overall support of it, Chairman Tele~io
expressed his opposition with expanding the proposed PDO Parcel No.9 (Mr. Malekzadeh's
property) and concurred with previously made comments that De Portola Road should be the
boundry line and that the parcels to the north of that road should not be included in ¡he
proposed PDO. I
¡
Having recently been appointed to the General Plan Committee, Mr. Telesio suggested that this
matter be forwarded to that comrnittee for further review. I
I
Principal Planner Hogan clarified that trash enclosures would not be allowed in the setbJck
areas adjacent to the residential zone property. I
!
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to adopt PC resolution No. 2004-007, including the
correction for the trash enclosures and recommend that the City Council consider in the
adoption of the General Plan, a transition standard for De Portola Road from Margarita Roadlon
east into the Los Ranchitos area. Commissioner Mathewson seconded the motion and voice
vote reflected approyal with the exception of Commissioner ~ who yoted tf2. i
!
!
.
,
¡
I
!
I
I
I
I
6 Plannina Application No. PA03-0444 Development Plan to construct two restaurants totalina
10.385 square feet and a 22.000 square foot retail buildina on 4.09 net acres located at the
southeast corner of Overland and Ynez Road. (APN 921-810-027) I
!
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-007
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0721 , CONSISTING OF A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, A ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT, AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL
CODE ADOPTING THE DEPORTOLA ROAD PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT.
.
R:\MinutesPC\O21804
4
.
.
.
Associate Planner Powe,rs presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the
following:
. That the proposed project consists of three commercial structures on an improved
vacant lot totaling 4.09 net acres; and that Building A is a retail center and Buildings B
and C will be restswants;
. That Building A wï:ll be a one-story center that will contain 10 commercials suites;
. That Building's Band C will be one-story restaurants;
. That there will be a water feature located at the front between both buildings; and that
pedestrians will be, able to travel between the restaurants and retail center;
. That the proposal will have a variety of architectural features such as stone, stucco,
metal roofing, trellis, and columns;
. That street planting off Overland Road will be consistent with the Costco property; and
that planting off Ynez Road will be consistent with the Guidant property;
. That there will be a variety of plants, shrubs, trees, and ground covering throughout the
site;
. That corner planting will be highly "stylized" to reinforce the dramatic water feature,
elevated wood trellis, and ornamental rock-faced monument wall;
. That staff reviewed a preliminary draft sign program that will conform to the City's sign
ordinance; that staff added a condition that the final sign program will be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Director;
. That there is an application currently pending to subdivide the five-acre parcel into three
parcels; and that this will be reviewed at a Director's hearing;
. That a sign program is currently pending revisions by the applicant;
. That there are two entrances into the retail center; and that there is one entrance off of
Ynez Road and one off Overland Road.
For the Commission, Principal Planner Hogan relayed that the proposed project will be on a
single parcel; that there will be no restricted parking within the one parcel; and that when the
parcel map is approved, there will be a reciprocal requirement for the entire project.
At this time, the Public HE!aring was opened.
Commending the architel;t on a job well done, Mr. David Waferfield, 42389 Winchester Road,
representing Overland Plaza, noted the following:
. That the applicant concurs with the conditions of approval;
. That the majority of the trees planted will be evergreens;
R:\MinutesPC\O21804
5
I
I
. That the water feature will help shield views of the traffic; I
I
. That the curved, free-standing wall will be stone veneer; that the wall will provi~e
screening, shading, and depth; and that the store-front wall will be stucco with a stone
detail at the base and a cast concrete base that mimics the front wall; and that the sartJe
materials on the two restaurants are repeated on the 22,000 square foot building; :
i
I
!
I
. That 19,000 of the 22,000 square feet is currently leased; that a credit union, day spa,
and sprint phone company are the types of tenants that will be occupying space. i
. That the applicant will be recruiting high-end restaurants;
. That there will be no lit signs on the back elevation along the channel;
. That the applicant will be effectively screening the back of the building;
At this time, the Public Hearing was closed.
I
Commissioner Guerriero expressed excitement in regard to the applicant stating that he will be
recruiting high-end restaurants and echoed Commissioner Chiniaeff's comments in regard! to
screening the back of the building from Ynez Road. !
I
Commissioners Mathewson and Chiniaeff expressed excitement with .regard to the new project,
stating that the applicant did a fantastic job. I
I
Chairman Telesio stated that he would support the project.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to adopt PC Resolution No. 2004-08.
Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous aPDrOVal.!
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-08 i
I
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0444, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 2
RESTAURANTS TOTALING 10,385 SQUARE FEET AND A
22,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING ON 4.09 ACRES
LOCATION AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OVERLAND
AND YNEZ ROAD (APN 921-810-027)
Director of Planning Ubnoske thanked Mr. Waferfield and the architect for a great job.
i
7 Plannino Application No. PA03-0711 a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plant to
construct a 3-storv office buildina with a retail portion on the first floor and offices on ¡he
second and third floors. totalina 17.334 square feet on a 7.000 square foot lot. located at the
northwest corner of Mercedes Street and Fifth Street. I
I
¡
I
I
!
¡
Associate Planner Rush presented a staff report (of record), noting the following:
R:\MinutesPC\O21804
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
. That since the writing of the staff report, the proposed project has been reviewed by the
Old Town Local Review Board and was approved unanimously 5-0, with all materials
and colors proposed; and that there were no changes;
. That the proposed project is a request for a mixed-use project located at the corner of
Mercedes Street and Fifth Street;
. That the first floor will be retail use predominantly a coffee blending and roasting house;
. That the applicant will be proposing an outdoor seating area;
. That the second and third floor of the building will be designated for office uses;
. That the proposed retail/office building will be a welcomed addition to the Old Town
area;
. That staff determined that the proposed architecture will be consistent with the
architectural styles found in California between 1890 and 1920;
. That the Old Town Specific Plan limits building heights to two-stories and 28 feet, with
the provision that any height increase must be reviewed by the City Council for final
approval (see Condition of Approval No.3).
For the Commission, Mr. Rush noted that the building height of the building behind the
proposed project is betwe!en 28 and 30 feet.
At this time, the Public Hoaring was opened.
Mr. Michael Me Auliffee, :37-707 Colbridge Street, relayed his excitement with the construction
of a project of this caliber.
Although expressing support of the design of this project, Mr. Scott Crone, 40575 Calle
Cancion, expressed concern with regard to parking.
For Mr. Crone, Principal Planner Hogan relayed that the City is in the process of acquiring sites
and building public parking and that the City currently has two lots and that there is discussion
of perhaps adding one or two more lots.
Mr. Otto Baron, 41915 4tl, Street, noted that he enthusiastically endorses the proposed project.
At this time, the Public Hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to adopt PC Resolution No. 2004-009.
Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimoús approval.
R:\MinutesPCI021804
7
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-009
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO PA03-0711, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 3-STORY OFFICE
BUILDING WITH A RETAIL PORTION ON THE FIRST FLOOR
AND OFFICES ON THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS
TOTALING 17,334 SQUARE FEET ON A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT
LOT, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
MERCEDES STREET AND FIFTH STREET, KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 922-024-014
¡
I
8 Plannina Application No. PA03-0279 A Tentative Tract Map (TTM30990) to subdivide 3
existina lots totalina 40.349 square feet into 5 sinale-familv lots. located on the west side of
Puiol Street and north of First Street ¡
I
Associate Planner Rush presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following:
i
. That the proposed project will be located at the northwest corner of Pujol Street and First
Street; i
. I
. That access to the lots will be taken from a 25-foot wide access driveway along Pujol i
Street and a private road; I
¡
. That the map will be conditioned to provide a 72 feet in length and 20 feet in width!
access easement; that the access shall be on all weather surface; that the intent of the
access will be to provide turnaround for trash trucks; and that without a turnaround for
trash trucks, the trucks would haye to back out of the site, which was determined by I
staff to be unsafe; I
I
. That the minimum lot size for the zoning district within Old Town is 7,000 square feet; I
however, there are provisions within the Development Code for affordable housing ¡
projects and staff recommended that the Planning Commission grant a provision to allow
the lot size as low as 5,925 square feet. :
I
I
There being no speakers, the Public Hearing was closed. I
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to adopt PC Resolution No. 2004-010. I
Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
At this time, the Public Hearing was opened.
R:\MinutesPC\O21804
8
.
.
.
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004-010
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO PAOa-0279, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30990
SUBDIVIDING THREE SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ON .93 GROSS
ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF PUJOL STREET AND FIRST STREET, KNOWN
AS ASSEBSORS PARCEL NO. 922-062-017, 922-062-019 AND
922-062-O:~1
9 Plannina Application No. PA03-0429 a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to
construct an 8.862 suuare foot office/warehouse buildina and an 8.560 square foot office/
warehouse buildina on 1.87 acres of land located at the corner of Enterprise Circle South
and Enterprise Circle West
Associate Planner Rush presented a staff report (as per agenda material), noting the following:
. That staff is recommending redesign of the proposed project;
. That the project h¡~s been to three Development Review Company (DRC) meetings (see
staff report);
That some of th e issues in staff's report have not been addressed such as long
unarticulated wall surfaces and rooflines;
. That the Citywide guidelines identify desirable elements for industrial buildings; that it
would be staff's contention that the proposed design is not meeting a variety of building
indentations and élrchitectural details and building entry accentuation;
. That design guidelines also identify undesirable elements; and that a large blank and flat
wall surfaces are identified as undesirable elements;
. That it would be staff's opinion that the north elevation on Building A does not have any
articulation; that it would be highly visible from public view as well as the east elevation
for Building B; and that staff recommended further articulation for those two areas;
'. That the Developrnent Code requires that long articulation wall surfaces be avoided;
. That it was requested that the applicant relocate the Fire Department Connection Valve,
Detector Check and Post Indicator Valve from its current on-site locations and that this
area be better served by upgrading landscaping;
. That the proposed project, as designed, will not be consistent with the Development
Code or Citywide design guidelines;
. That staff requested that the Planning Commission provide comments and direction to
staff in regard to the architecture.
At this time, the Public Hoaring was opened.
R:\MinutesPC\O21804
9
Mr. Dean Davidson, 40023 Myrtlewood Court, architect, relayed the following:
I
. That the applicant has been working with staff to create interest in the building; I
. That some of the materials being used will be textured concrete block, split-face block,
cornice decorative accent blocks, and decorative treatment around all window opening~;
I
!
i
!
. That the applicant agreed to make entry statements;
That the unarticulated walls will be facing the Murrieta Creek and the drainage canal; i
. That there will be one wall along the adjoining automobile facility; !
I
That the applicant was of the opinion that staff's concerns had been met and w~re
astonished to hear that staff had continuing concerns; !
That the applicant provided a number of features that were not required on the initial
plans. .
I
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Davidson relayed that he would be able to add m6re
landscaping in the back of the building along the Creek. !
Ms. Brenda Yanoschik, 40140 Winchester Road, attorney representing the applicant, rela~ed
the following:
That the applicant was astonished to hear staff had additional concerns;
. That the proposed project will exceed the surrounding areas architecture;
I
¡
For the Commission, Director of Planning Ubnoske clarified that staff has been working with \he
applicant for quite some time and has hit an impass and that therefore, staff would be
requesting a continuance. I
I
Assistant City Attorney Curly clarified that although staff requested a continuance, the applicànt
may seek a denial as to appeal to the Council. !
I
I
Commissioner Mathewson concurred with staff's recommendations and requested that Ihe
applicant address staff's concerns.
. That the applicant would be willing to add more landscaping.
Commissioner Guerriero requested that the applicant add more articulation to the building.
I
Chairman Telesio echoed Commissioners Mathewson and Guerriero's comments and
expressed difficulty in understanding that the applicant was unaware of staff's concerns. i
For clarification, Ms. Yanoschik noted that the applicant was unaware that staff ~as
recommending the Planning Commission to disapprove and redesign the project, that the
applicant was of the opinion that staff would be neutral. Ms. Yanoschik also noted that She
stated that Mr. Majewski's project exceeds the design of the adjacent buildings. I
!
I
!
I
I
R:\MinutesPC\Q21804
10
.
.
.
.
.
.
Assistant City Attorney Curly noted that it would be helpful to inquire from the applicant if he
would be willing to redesi¡¡n.
At this time, the Public Hearing was reopened.
Mr. Craig Majewski, 26785 Sandia Creek, owner of property, stated the following:
. That the applicant tried to work with staff and that staff has only given general
guidelines;
. That Mr. Davidson, the architect, has redesigned the plans;
. That the proposal will be a simple building;
. That the applicant tried to make this project different from the existing buildings;
. That this street is not a heavily traveled street;
. That there is a building down the street from the proposed building that was approved
by the Planning Commission which has unarticulated walls;
That the proposed building has color variation, rocks, and split-faced blocks;
. That the applicant has been working with staff on the project since August 2003.
For Mr. Majewski and Mr. Davidson, Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested adding another pop-out
on the front elevation to ¡¡ive it some articulation along the roofline and plant heavily along the
back of the building.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Majewski relayed that he would be amenable to his
suggestions.
Commissioner Guerriero relayed that he is amenable to awnings as long as they are
maintained.
For the Commission, ,lI,ssociate Planner Rush relayed that the changes suggested by
Commissioner Chiniaeff would address staff's concerns.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested that the item be continued to March 17,2004, for
redesign; that the applicant work to enhance the elevations of Front Street, entryway to
driveway, and add more landscaping to the back of the building. Commissioner Guerriero
seconded the motion and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
COMMISSIONER'S REPIDRTS
Commissioner Guerriero øxpressed concern with the trash pile-up on Front Street and Del Rio.
For Commissioner Guerriero, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that Principal Planner
Brown has spoken with the owner and that this is currently under abatement.
R:\MinutesPCI021804
11
Commissioner Chiniaeff thanked staff for adding aerial photographs to staff reports, noting ttt
it has been helpful. I
Commissioner Mathewson requested that the sign frame at Marie Calendar be removed. i
I
For Commissioner Olhasso, Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that the purch~se
implementation of the Code Enforcement software is currently pending. I
!
Chairman Telesio noted that he took a drive through the Harveston development and noticed
that they had grey square metal mailboxes had been installed and queried if these mail bo~es
will be enhanced. !
!
For Chairman Telesio, Ms. Ubnoske noted that she would explore the issue of metal mailbox~s.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director of Planning Ubnoske relayed that staff is currently in the process of amending the
Old Town Specific Plan which will be forwarded to the Planning Commission within the next ~ix
weeks and that when the DDA is finalized for the campus project, a Conditional Use Perlnit
would be forwarded to the Planning Commission for action. .
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:30 p.m., Chairman Telesio formally adjourned this meeting to the next reQular meetina to
be held on Wednesday. March 3. 2004 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula. I
I
John Telesio
Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:\MinutesPC\O21804
12
.
.
.
.
ITEM #3
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission
Don Hazon, Principal Plann#
April 7,2004
PA03-02:!7 and PA03-0625
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Staff requests the following applications be continued to the April 21, 2004 meeting in order to
provide the applicant additional time to satisfy Public Works and TCSD concerns relating to
alley designs of the tract:
Aaenda Item #3
A Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 4.28 acres in 60 single-family residential lots
averaging 3,000 square feet, and a Development Plan to consider the architectural
design and placement of the proposed homes within the tract, located north of
Harveston Lake, west of Loop Drive, and east of the Lakefront Cottages tract.
A complete staff report and recommended conditions of approval will be forthcoming and
included in the packet for the April 21, 2004 meeting.
R:\D Pl2003\O3-0625 AshvilielConlinuememo.doc
.
ITEM #4
.
.
.
.
.
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting: April 7,2004
Prepared by:
File Number
PA03-06i'1
Application Type:
Development Plan
Project Description:
Recommendation:
(Check One)
CECA:
(Check One)
Matthew Harris
Title: Associate Planner
PA03-0671 a Development Plan to construct a 7,567 sq. ft. single-
story Red Lobster Restaurant on 1.1 acres located at the northeast
,corner of Overland Drive and Promenade.
~ Approve with Conditions
D Deny
D Continue for Redesign
D Continue to:
D Recommend Approval with Conditions
D Recommend Denial
~ Categorically Exempt
D Negative Declaration
D Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
R:ID 1'\2003\03-0671 Red Lobster\ST AfF REPORT.doc
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
.
i
I
Applicant: STDR Architects I
Completion Date: November 18, 2003 I
Mandatory Action Deadline Date: February 17, 2004. Applicant has agreed to exte~d
deadline to April 30, 2004 I
I
General Plan Designation:
Service Commercial (SC)
Zoning Designation:
Tem. Regional Center (SP 7)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Vacant
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial
Vacant
Vacant
Commercial
Lot Area:
69,140 Sq. Ft.
7,567 Sq. Ft. /11%
.
Total Floor Area/Ratio
Landscape Area/Coverage
13,675 Sq Ft./20%
Parking Required/Provided
37 Spaces Required/102 Provided
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
I
I
D 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. I
(or)
[8]1.
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addresseå,
however, the following issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction to staff: I
For aesthetic purposes, staff requested that the applicant use colored concrete In
association with the sidewalk that traverses the front of the building. Staff believes the
colored concrete would further compliment the proposed decorative paving at t~e
restaurant entrance. The applicants are opposed to the colored concrete. .
.
R,\D Pl2oo3\03-0671 Red LobsterlST AFF REPORT.doc
.
.
.
[8J 2.
The attached "Project Review Worksheet" (Attachment A) has been completed and
staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, City-
wide Design Guidelines, the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Specific Plan and
the Development Code.
(or)
02.
The attached "Project Review Worksheef' (Attachment A) has been completed and
indicates that staff cannot make all the findings of consistency required for approval.
ANALYSIS
In July of 2001, the Planning Commission approved a Development Plan for the Overland
Corporate Center compløx. The approved site plan indicated that either an 84-room hotel or
14,000 square foot office building would be developed on this 1.1 acre pad. Instead of building
one of those options, the! applicants are now proposing to develop a 7,567 square foot single-
story Red Lobster restaurant. Condition of Approval No.7 of the Development Plan required that
the Planning Commission review and approve any changes to the approved building types.
Staff has determined thai overall, the project is consistent with the General Plan and conforms
with the City-Wide Desi!Jn Guidelines and development standards specified in the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan.
The project conforms with all applicable development standards including parking, landscaping
and setback requirements. The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan requires thirty-seven
(37) onsite parking spaces. The Development Code requires seventy-six (76) spaces One-
hundred and two (102) parking spaces have been provided. Reciprocal parking and access
easements will be provided between adjacent parcels within the center. Twenty percent of the
project site has been landscaped, a minimum of fifteen percent is required.
A Lot Line Adjustment application is currently being processed to reconfigure existing lot line
on site to better accommodate the restaurant facility.
A southeast coastal architecture has been utilized commensurate with a seafood restaurant.
Staff believes the restaurant building is consistent with applicable provisions of the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan and City-Wide Design Guidelines. While the architectural style of
the restaurant is completely different from the existing office buildings in the center, staff feels
this unique architecture is appropriate for a restaurant building in the mall area where the
Planning Commission has approved different architectural styles for other restaurants in the
recent past.
One outstanding issue remains. In association with project review, planning staff requested that
the sidewalk that traverses the front of the restaurant be constructed with colored concrete for
aesthetic purposes. Staff believes that a colored concrete sidewalk, compatible with the color of
the building and decorative paving at the front of the building would serve to further complement
the restaurant facility. The applicants oppose this improvement and have not shown it on the
plans. This requirement has been made a recommended condition of approval (See condition
No.4.d.).
R:ID 1'\2003\03-0671 Red LobsterlST AFF REPORT-doc
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
01.
(or)
[8] 1.
.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project ~as
been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. (Class,
name, type) :
The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the previously
approved (EIR) and is exempt from further Environmental Review (CEQA Section
15162 subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations).
CONCLUSION/RECOM M ENDA TlON
Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the General Plan and conforms with the
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan and City-Wide Design Guidelines. Therefore, s¡aff
recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed restaurant subject to the
attached conditions of approval.
FINDINGS
Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010F
1.
2.
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan, Temecula Regional Center
Specific Plan and with all applicable requirements of State law and other City ordinances.
.
The plan to develop a restaurant totaling 7,567 square feet is consistent with the
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan and the City-Wide Design Guidelines.
Moreover, the proposed plan, as conditioned, incorporates architectural and landscape
designs, which will achieve the City's General Plan Community Design Goal '#3,
"Preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts ¡ or
neighborhoods ': '
The Restaurant complies with all applicable development standards of the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan and Development Code including off-street parking and
landscaping requirements. '
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety, and general welfare.
The project has been conditioned to conform to the Uniform Building Code, and priá to
occupancy, City staff will inspect all construction. The site design will provide adequate
emergency access in the case of a need for emergency response to the site. :
.
R,ID 1'\2003\03-0671 Red Lobster\ST AFF REPORT.doc
.
.
.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Plan Reductions - Blue Page 6
2.
Project Review Worksheet - Blue Page 7
3.
PC Resolution No. :W04 - Blue Page 8
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
R:ID 1'\2003\03-0671 Red LobstetlSTAFF REPORT.doc
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
.
.
R:\D 1'\2003\03-0671 Red LobsterlSTi\FF REPORT.doc
\
I
i ~
, c
\ ~ ~ '
I
\
\
I
I I
\ ii-1_1'_'1l_< .. . / .
~~ \1,: ! \ ill,;¡ I -.:;~""<¡- :-.- '/'/>1/ :: ¡¡
" ': ::ì ..... "', I ~:; II
~ l~! '"",I' : ::~ i """ »'" ¡
5 11 LL, ~ I: i v II "
0 \, i. i \ \ i ~
It: :¡~,'!~~ I! !I,W'! iì'!~I""""'I>""""" '!'""'¡'!'¡"'1
g~II~~ !1!l1 !I~! I
HiiiHiiiFmmi_¡ !!~~; ¡j i~V Hii I'
WIII¡IIIII'IIII;::m¡¡I¡ ~¡,h~ I! I!d ~i!i """,m"""""""!;""'I"'=
111!!I:li'i'IIHm~¡III:¡!! ~ ill ~ I: I: j Iii !~
1-¡I,II lihii ""-ij:'¡! :1' ,
! I'ii lI¡m~,i!! ! ~ ¡, 1 I! I!! ~ 'II II
I limo,,'! ¡ II ~!!
¡ , I, i ! I
! ;, I::I!I~ m"-n~ !::!n ¡;;,lïl~1
'Illilli I!!I! ¡~ 1fI1¡!. ¡!"II~
ill' i I!~ "'q
1::11'1 ":'1'1 I!!I!II !!í.!II~
lu¡l i II!:I~ ;III¡II ¡III:I!
.
.~,~"
-,,-
~
u
'~
:: I;
1&2'<
, ~
'¡¡
.
.
, - lIED LOBSTER
1;-"1'-1 ==:-
, ,,¡ ---CONCEPTUAL GRJIDING PLAN
Ir-
'----------
------------------
----------------------------------------------
------------------
--~ = '----~:-n_~:~:~~\\~
I!II II!, I, !Iall ','!!,!,:¡
!Ii"".. II
I"",
"1' '11 i.' ¡¡Iii
~'I' III "",
i. ,Pili
I ",','i, ¡ i "
"" .
, I
!::ill~ !::I¡¡~~
'mlli !!!I! ~
! ill" I I ~
..¡
!::II¡¡¡ !':II¡"
;!!I~I~ ¡ ¡I!i:
1 I~ Iii
~".I"i! ~.".I!i5¡
'¡h --I!I~
'I!!'~ ¡If¡. .!:!
II P "Iq
i ..
!;!Ijll !!i!II~
111111;1111111
~
I'í¡""ïi¡'¡"i
I' Ili!I, I II
I i'l.d!I!¡!"
1'1'0" "¡Ii'
¡iIH=I!i¡~I:,
!!l!! i¡'I'lj
1ii:1I !I'I!!! I
III'" ", I
II ¡II. ¡"
'illl! I Ii
! i"li . 'I
'I. I"!!:;;'!
:I,!I, '¡II
! '1' I .
!.~¡,¡ Iii
¡I;,I,
,Ig,
i ,"I
. III. .".
I " II~
i I
Jfi! illl"!
11'1 ~ I!,'I
~II~ ç ~
,~ .
J" i
-1-
! -
i ~
\ ~..
I '; ¡
ð.-.-..--..j--..l___...._---.
'¡Ii i.!I.Ii.'.'.I.!!a I 1111;1
. ~ I~ BI'II' !hi !; II I ""
I ""!' I.....
'. ! ¡;: ¡III "'" ~
°'2011 .--5U.~
~ I.: ;~" Ii!! Ii if "",
'WI ,. "'¡II ¡ ~i
"1- ~
I , ,..1 ,
, ""
.. !
» I i ............! IIi c-.._"",
~!!.¡ II 1111
.. .' ~=:" ¥
SITE PLAN I
.
~
PROMENADE w;¡y--
.
! I!
f)
.
¡!
~~~~.""~."C
~ lmIIIIJIIII. S,~¿~
I
I
~ I
å@
i
I
I';I~ ql.» tnl
rl:1! ~¿J!~,,¡¡:~~
,.'.1': hht~¡:;~~~. :~[
, !~ 'fJa:f:'i~<;J ì :~
..
.
.
~.!'II!I
¡¡¡¡Iii
¡'", I
'S<¡I
r
]~I!
-:z:
8
.
[¡!¡]
~
m
m
m
no
I 11
i.ED
100
I !
Iocr i
DO [';
i-I
DD
DO,
¡'Dci
1=1
.f=
"' -
,
m
"
'I
» i i I """"""1 ! (I .-.........-w., I
N! .llli ~=~,
FLOOR PLAN i
e8. ¡';"I ~~i.?öo .In
-I'I! ""Jfo"""Þ'~
, ,'" . :ó"zzz ..
~ ,.~".,.~,,~ I!:! hïi!t;;:",¡¡¡,.",. .~
~ ~;;-", ' 1" '.r b-<~¡:!:J ! :~
.~ .-,.,.,.~.ooo.~ a V> ,
.
§
~
¡;j
~ ~ ~ l ' ,
;II!~ II!IIIII! U! III! 1111 ~18
1111'111 ~II 1m 1¡'iII m ~ ~
¡Ii, ¡'I Wi Iii 1~lil ¡II g¡ ~
, '" 'I I; IJiI 15
~ ~ ~ I I I; ;
. , I
0
"
.
þ
~
§
~
.
» i I """"""1 Iii c:.n.."__l" l'Ii¡¡¡ I~~Jf ~"'~n.
¿'11;,I!ni ~=:'" i /'1" ff.t t.~
EXTERIOR ELEV'TlONS ( ~ ~:-. :::,+~' , . ~I .;;! I! -< ¡.~
~ !!i! .-~,,'~- o¡: "a-v: f:~ ,
i ;
I
..
.
.
.
~
~
~
0
~
0
~
~
0
~
§
¡j
:þ I ¡ I """"""¡ !II <-""""""""1
~!I'lpi ~==- i
EXŒRIOR ELEVATIONS
0
z
! !
III!I II!~ II!I I !!! III! III! I~ ~~
¡II!I ill ~II 1m 111m iii ~-
111¡!'I~!liml~J;IIII;::
,¡"II II Iii I ê5
! 1'1 II
. I I
¡¡;~-"._,.><
~ _. ="?l~
1';"1 ~I." In
oW ij¡J!~",:;:;;!~
¡"~I"~: If!d;!;¡=~ZI' .~
:! I-I, ~~~,.~. .-
,¡""!rfI'J-<I¡::;:'.O
.i! . al ¡;; -< t..
..
:~ il~
,
@
i
i
I
~II
mr
~i
~ I no
~gn
i
I
0 b gOgO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IT -
0
j
\
. ,
I III
I ,:,
i i !
¡I
» i ............ II ( Comw"-- ì
. III I 1'1"'- .................. f
en -, " .1 T_Oo," ~
ROOF PLAN f
~
0
.
"-j'
- -Ü)
..u.. 'uuu... "OJ
0
~ \
!
.
.
.. ,_¡IiI) ~~:i~",:;:~rJ ~n
j'I': ft!¡¡I;!;;=~z" I ,~
~ :;',,~.:::;;.~~ , ¡',.:!,' .::.!~~~~6 j !'~
!Ii .~':'":;":.:' ... 'a.u; !-
I
I
CONCEP'IUAL LANDSCAPE OEVEWPMENT PLAN
Red Lobster- Overland Corporate Center, Temecula
i,:,"',','",':,'. SCHEER TANAKA DENNEHY RILEY ARCHITECTS
c':J: ~:-'K:.~g~'::'~~;:¡6
(714)444-1%0
.
OVERLAND DRLVE
SYMBOL LEGEND
-
;:-=:R~ ==::e
.
E9
0
~ =';';;.=GACCON< _.~, . Wb . ..
0",'"" ' ""AD~""'D=""",","
, -.......
"i'NG TREES
E9
()
ø
(()
0
0
0
PLANT PALETTE
"L.DCA~D~""N~~QIT","
-- --
""G"'N "'-"NT""
......~~
-----
SHRUBS & GROUNO COVERS
~iß\'~
EJ
'p-
...-.-.'- ,-~....- '....
~ ::: == ::"7'"'- :::::
EJ .. _.,.~ ~... ,~~
. ~--~ -~-- '....
EJ .,.~-- ~- '....
D
VINES/ESPAUER
-,~_.~ "....
~=_._~....
FEATURE LEGEND
(j)_.,~
(j)~--..,
OJ ---,...-"..,-
OJ ---.-.--
<i> ------..-,
<i>---
ø.........--,
ø r<~-.--....
ø --.-.....-
@~"...._~
@.~-,
@ '-.--..----
@ -.--.".~-...
@ --......-~-,-
@ _,-,_ili.._-
@-"_.-
@ "'ili~-
@ -_..__._-~,~,..", 0
@-_..~~,~,-.' ,
u~. "".~ ,r~
~-
"
".
~
I
-.-(~
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
R:ID 1'\2003\03-0671 Red Lobster\STAFF REPORT.doc
.
.
.
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Commercial
Planning Application Number:
PA03-0671
1. General Plan Designation:
Service Commercial (SC)
Consistent? Yes
2. Zoning Designation:
Tem. Reg. Center, SP-7
Consistent? Yes
3. Environmental Documents Referred to in Making Determination:
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
0
General Plan EIR
Sensitive Biological Habitat Map
Sensitive Archeological Area Map
Sensitive Paleontological Area Map
Fault Hazard Zone Map
Subsidence/Liquefaction Hazard Map
100 Y03ar Flood Map
Future Roadway Noise Contour Map
Other (Specify)
~
Previous EIR/N.D. (Specify Project Name & Approval Date):
T emecula Regional Center Specific Plan! October 11, 1994
D
Submitted Technical Studies (Specify Name, Author & Date):
0
Other:
4. Environmental Determination:
~ Exempt
0 Mitigated Negative Declaration
D Negatiye Declaration
D EIR
~ 10 Day Review
0 20 Day Review
0 30 Day Review
5. General Plan Goals Consistency:
Consistent Inconsistent
~ 0
~ 0
~ 0
Land Use
Circulation
Housing
KID 1'12003\03-0671 Red LobsteIlPROJECf REVIEW WORKSHEET-doc
1
Consistent
[8]
[8]
[8]
[8]
[8]
[8]
[8]
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Commercial
Inconsistent
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
.
OS/Conservation
Growth Management/Public Facilities
Public Safety
Noise
Air Quality
Community Design
Economic Development
6. City-wide Design Guideline Consistency:
[8]
Site Plannina:
A. How does the placement of building(s) consider the surrounding area
character?
The project site consists of a graded corner pad within the existing
Overland Corporate Center complex. The large majority of the site is
higher than the adjacent streets. The restaurant building has bflen
sited back into the corner of the property whereby the south and west
building elevations will be visable from the street at the top of the
slopes. The building placement is consistent with established building
and landscaping setacks oulined in the Temecula Regional Center
Specific Plan. The building does not create an overwhelming sca/~ or
visual obstruction. Onsite parking will be established between the
restaurant building and the existing office buildings to the northeast.
The parking is consistent with established functional patterns within
the center. . '
.
B. How do the structures interface with adjoining properties to a~oid
nuisances and hazards?
The service facilities for the restaurant have been located at Ithe
north side of the building and provide easy access for serltice
vehicles. The facilities will not create a nuisance for adjacent uses
and circulation conflicts have been minimized. '
C. How does the building placement allow buildings rather than parking lots
to define the street edge?
The building has been sited into the corner of the site wherby'the
south and west building elevations will be visible from the adjacent
streets at the top of onsite slopes. The portions of the parking lot that
are adjacent to streets will be seperated from the roadway with a
minimum 25-foot wide landscape buffer and slopes.
.
R,\D NOO3\O3.0671 Red Lobstei\PROJECf REVIEW WORKSHEET.doc
2
.
.
.
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Commercial
~
Parkina and Circulation:
A. How doHs the parking lot design allow customers and deliveries to reach
the site, circulates through the parking lot, and exit the site easily?
The parking lot is designed to achieve a circular traffic pattern. This provides
motorists the option of entering or entering a parking space from two different
directions which assures easy accesibilty and manuvering. In addition, the
design of the onsite loading space enables deivery vehicles easy access to
the rE'staurant delivery door and adequarte vehicle manuvering within the
parking lot.
B. How doHS the parking lot design provide safe and convenient access to
pedestrilans and bicyclists?
The parking lot is not overly large and pedestrians will only have to cross a
maximum of two parking lot drive aisles when entering or exiting the
restaurant. A pedestrian access way will be established along the north side
of the' parking lot which creates a connection point between the restaurant
and the existing office buildings within the center. Bicycle racks will be
provided near the restaurant entrance providing convenient access.
C. How are the service facilities within the parking lot screened or buffered
from public view?
Service facilities for the restaurant such as the loading space and trash
enclo:1Ure shall be screened from the adjacent street given the existing grade
diffeœnce and proposed landscaping improvements. Moreover, these
facilities shall be screened with plantings so as not to be visible from the front
parking lot area.
~
Buildina Architecture:
A. How doøs the building design provide articulation of the building mass?
The design of the building achieves articulation of the building mass through
the use of multi-planed pitched roofs. A large roof overhang creates a
cover.ed porch effect and serves to break-up the main body of the building.
B. How is Hach building "stylistically" consistent with all buildings in a
comple:< , and on all elevations to achieve design harmony and continuity
within itself?
No specific architectural theme or style was required in association with the
Regional Center Specific Plan or the Planning Commission approval of the
R:ID P\2003\O3-0671 Red LobsteIlPROJECf REVIEW WORKSHEET.doc
3
¡g¡
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Commercial ì
overall Overland Corporate Center complex. Staff has worked with the
applicant to achieve a Southeast coastal architectural style commensutate
with a seafood restaurant. Staff believes the building architecture, is
compatible with existing buildings within the center and will serve! to
compliment the property. Moreover, staff believes that all elevations of the
building have harmonious elements and materials that create architectqral
continuity throughout.
.
C. How does the placement of buildings create a more functional or useful
open space between the buildings and/or the street?
The restaurant building placement is consistent with the established building
and landscaping setbacks within the center. Existing perimeter slòpe
plantings between the building and street frontages will be expanded With
additional trees and shrubs between the top of the slope and the building
creating a 30' to 40' wide landscape buffer.
D. How do each of the architectural elements (building base, windows,
doors and openings, cornice and parapet, roofline, and finish materials
meet the intent of the design guidelines?
In accordance both the City-Wide Design Guidelines and the Regional Center
Specific Plan, a significant ledge stone base has been provided around the
perimeter of the building. Large decorative windows have been incorporated
into the roof line to create interest and formality. Ground floor window si~es
and shapes are repeated for rhythm. The main building entry is punctuated
with wall surface breaks and projects from the main body of the building.
.
The entry is identified by decorative doors and glass side panels along wit* a
courtyard constructed with decorative paving which provides a connection
between the entry and adjacent parking area. The roofline of the building is
integral to the overall building design and form. The roof forms and mate~als
are stylistically consistent with the overall design theme of the building.
Decorative roof elements continue around the entire building. Building
materials and colors are harmonious and varied to provide interest. Significant
overhangs create a porch effect and provide significant shadow patterns.
Landscapina:
A. Does the plan provide the following ratio of plantings?
[g Yes 0 No, why?
Trees
10% 36" Box
30% 24" Box
60% 15 Gallon
Shrubs
100% 5 Gallon
Groundcover
100% Coverage
In One Year
.
R,ID 1'\2003\03-0671 Red Lobstel\PROJECf REVIEW WORKSHEET.doc
4
.
.
.
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Commercial
B. Does the landscaped area, ratio, spacing, and size conform with the
design guidelines? ~ Yes D No
C. How dOI¡S the internal site landscaping frame the building(s) and
separatl6 them from the surrounding pavements?
Ornamental trees and shrubs along the front building elevation will serve to
further soften and frame the building and separate the building from the
sidewtl/k. Walkways and patios have been located adjacent to the building on
the south and west elevations so as to create the illusion of a boardwalk along
the abutting simulated streambed with substantial landscaping improvements
beyond which reduce the view of the building from abutting roadways.
Landscaping has been incorporated into the service area to provide softening
and screening.
D. How dol6s the patio and street' furniture, fixtures, walls and fences integrate
with of the architecture and landscaping?
Decorative light fixtures that are compatible with the building architecture will
be utilized on the building. Nautical looking posts, rope and benches will be
utilized at the restaurant entrance to further the coastal theme of the building.
Moreover, staff has determine that proposed wall mounted signage generally
conforms to the type and size of signage allowed in the previously approved
OverltElnd Corporate Center Sign Program.
7. Development Code Consistency:
A. How dOE~S the plan achieve the performance standards specified in Code
Section 17.08.070?
Circulation:
The pr'Jject site is served by common access points that are utlized by other
commmcial and office uses within the center. A pedestrain linkage will be
established between the restaurant and the other uses onsite. The bulk of the
on site parking aisles are seperated from main circulation routes throughout
the center.
ArchiteGtural Desian:
Exces~;ive mass and bulk have been avoided through the use of varying roof
height~;, planes and decorative windows. The main entrance has been offset
and pronounced. The body of the building has been broken-up with a large
porch like overhang and associated decorative support columns eliminating
long unarticulated walls. The associated service facilities have been
incorporated into the restaurant bulding utlizing matching architectural design
features and materials.
R:ID 1'\2003\03-067 t Red LobsterlPROJEcr REVIEW WORKSHEET-doc
5
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Commercial
I-~
I
!
Site Plannina and Desian:
.
The front entrance court is comprised of decorative cobblestone paving,
seating benches, wood posts with nautical rope and a simulated streamb~d
along with ornamental plantings which serve to ehance aesthetics for tbe
pedestrian. A covered outdoor dining area has been established on the w~st
side of the restaurant with adjacent simulated streambed and landscapi~g
beyond creating a parklike atmosphere. The loading facilities are located to
the side of the front building elevation and are screened from the parking
area. Trees and shrubbery have been provided around all four sides of t~e
building to further soften and break-up the building elevations.
Compatibility:
The restaurant use is not located adjacent to a residential use.
B. Does the application and submitted plans on file conform with all of the
applicable minimum development standards?
~ Yes, with conditions
0 No
.
Net Lot Area:
Total Floor Area:
Floor Area Ratio:
Lot Coverage:
42,433 Square Feet
7,567 Square Feet
11%
15%
Habitat
Subs.lLiqfctn
Stream/Creek
Air Quality
Arch.lPaleo
Fault Zone
Flood
Noise
.
R:\D 1'12003\03-0671 Red LobstenPROJECf REVIEW WORKSHEET.doc
6
.
.
.
PROJECT REVIEW WORKSHEET
Development Plan
Commercial
~ n¡ø e S " ea 'a 0
North Commerc:ial SP-7 SC
East Vacant H/LM H/LM
West Commerc:ial SP-7 CC
South Vacant CC CCP
R:\D 1'\2003\03-0671 Red LobsterlPROJECf REVIEW WORKSHEET.doc
7
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTION Nb. 2004--
R:ID 1'\2003\03.0671 Red LobsterlSTAFF REPORTdoc
'"' """:cc'l.:l'(¿Èfc~&'.....""",,,-,~,~,,.,,¿::'¿;;;",J&l":¡~:,.
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0671, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT,
ESTABLISH AND OPERATE A SINGLE-STORY RED LOBSTER
RESTAURANT BUILDING TOTALING 7,567 SQUARE FEET ON
1.6 ACRES. THE SITE IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEt.ST CORNER OF OVERLAND DRIVE AND
PROMENADE WAY ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL
NOS. 921.830-027 & 028.
WHEREAS, STDI'I Architects filed Planning Application No. PA03-0671, Development
Plan "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Teinecula General Plan and
Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application 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 the Application
on April 7, 2004, 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 tho conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based
upon the findings set forth hereunder:
WHEREAS, allle!Jal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
ThE! above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinos. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section 17.05.010F of the Temecula Municipal
Code:
A. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan, Temecula Regional
Specific Plan and with all applicable requirements of state law and other City ordinances.
The plan to devølop a restaurant totaling 7,567 square feet is consistent with the
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan and the City-Wide Design Guidelines.
Moreover, the pfCIposed plan, as conditioned, incorporates architectural and landscape
designs, which will achieve the City's General Plan Community Design Goal #3,
"Preservation and enhancement of the positive qualities of individual districts or
neighborhoods ':
R:ID 1'\2003\03.0671 Red LobsterIPC RESOLUTION.doc
I
I
The Restaurant complies with al/ applicable development standards of the TemecLa
Regional Center and Development Code including off-street parking and landscaping
requirements ,
B. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the puþlic
health, safety, and general welfare. !
I
The project has been conditioned to conform to the Uniform Building Code, and pridr to
occupancy, City staff will inspect al/ construction. The site design will provide adeq~ate
emergency access in the case of a need for emergency response to the site. i
I
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. A Notice of Exemption for Plan~ing
Application No. 00-0397 was made per the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
Section 15162. This section applies when an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has b~en
certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared, for
that project unless there are substantial changes not discussed or examined in the EIR. '
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission her~by
conditionally approves the Application, a request to develop a single-story restaurant buil~ing
totaling 7,567 square feet set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this
reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary. !
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planriing
Commission this 7h day of April 2004. r
John Telesio, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
R,\D I'aOO3\O3-0671 Red Lobstet\PC RESOLUTION.doc
.
.
.
.
.
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnoskl~, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted b~ the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the i day of April 2004, by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:ID 1'12003\03-0671 Red LobslerIPC RESOLUTION.doc
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:ID 1'\2003\03-0671 Red LobsterlFinal COA's.doc
12
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA03-0671
Project Descripti,)n:
A Development Plan to construct, establish and
operate a single-story Red Lobster restaurant
building totaling 7,567 square feet on 1.6 acres.
The site is generally located on the northeast
corner of Overland Drive and Promenade Way.
DIF Category:
TUMF Category:
Exempt
Commercial
Assessor Parcel No.:
921-830-027 & 028
Approval Date:
April 7,2004
Expiration Date:
April 7, 2006
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) flours of the Approval of this Project
1.
The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order
made payable to 'the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) 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 approyal for the project granted shall be yoid by reason of failure of condition
(Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
2.
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, and
hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its
officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against
the City, or any a! ency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and
agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an
approval of the Ciity, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal
board or legislativø body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning
the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of
limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et
seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section .21152 and 21167). The City
R:ID /'\2003\03-0671 Red LobsterlFinll COA's.doc
shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought
forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action
and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additiohal
deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unuSed
portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to
either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be
responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
3.
This approval shall be used by the Expiration Date noted above; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval, which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or
the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
I
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit jD"
(Site Plan), contained on file with the Planning Department Additionally, the fOllOWing
criteria must be met prior to development of the project:
a. All ground mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall be located such that t~ey
are not placed in prominent locations visible to the public. I
Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water plans
and electrical plans for verification of acceptable placement of the transforrller
and the double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility compani~s.
I
In accordance with the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, the double
detector check assembly shall be installed underground. I
The sidewalk that traverses the front building elevation shall be constructed of
colored concrete. The color shall be approved by the Planning Director and s~all
be shown on the architectural site plan in association with the construction
drawings. I
Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine
directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All parking lot lights and other
exterior lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Departmentl of
Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirement~ of
Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Wall pack style light fixtures shall not be utilized!
I
Parking lot lights shall be consistent with the standards used throughout the mall which
include a dark bronze round tapered pole with a mounded height of twenty to thirty-five
(20-35) feet. I
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Building
Elevations), contained on file with the Planning Department. All mechanical and roof-
mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were designed for that
purpose as an integral part of the building. When determined to be necessary by the
Director of Planning, the parapet will be raised to provide for this screening. I
a. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit uP' (Landsc~pe
Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determined that the
landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning shall have the
4.
b.
c.
d.
5.
6.
7.
R:\D 1'\2003\03-%11 Red l.obsteIlFinat COA's,doc
.
.
.
.
.
.
8.
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.
The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list of
approved colors and materials and with the Color and Material Board contained on file
with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation from
the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning.
Material
Columns & Railin~1
Wood Trim, Window Sash, Mullions
Frame, Cornice, Trash Enclosure, Gates
Siding
Siding Material
Roof Material
Culture Stone Material
Color
Sherwin Williams #SW2123 White
Sherwin Williams #SW6230 Rain Storm
Sherwin Williams #SW2430 Tuscan Beige
Hardy Plank Lap Siding
Standing Seam Weathered Metallic (Copper Brown)
Carolina Ledge Stone Onyx Brown
9.
The construction plans shall indicate the application of painted rooftop addressing
plotted on a 9-inch grid pattern with 45-inch tall numerals spaced 9-inches apart. The
numerals shall be, painted with a standard 9-inch paint roller using fluorescent yellow
paint applied over a contrasting background. The addresses(s) shall be oriented to the
street and placed as closely as possible to the edge of the building closest to the street.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
10.
11.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and
return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for
their files.
12.
The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10' glossy photographic color prints of the
approved Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E",
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 bH readable on the photographic prints.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
13.
A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
14.
A Lot Line Adjus1ment application shall be approved and pertinent materials shall be
recorded.
15.
Three (3) copies elf Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Department - Planning Division. These plans
shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "H1" and "H2," or as amended by
R:ID P\2oo3\03.0671 Red LobsterlFind COA's.doc
~.oo ro",j;!;o",. Tho roœtion, """"'" """', 'I'",;æ, "" ronIa;"" "'" of lho I'll
shall be shown. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. T e
plans shall be accompanied by the following items:
a. 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). I
Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approved
plan).
b.
c.
d.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
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 Directo( of
Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. lilhe
irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approJed
construction landscape and irrigation plan shall be filed with the Community
Development Department - Planning Division for one year from final certificate i of
occupancy. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been
maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shalilbe
released. i
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit. I
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS i
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to ~ny
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 ~nd
drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further
review and revision. I
General Requirements I
19. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improveme?ts,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of ¡¡¡ny
construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. I
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prio~ to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. i
I
All grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing
improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36' CitY of
Temecula mylars.
16.
17.
18.
20.
21.
R,ID P\2oo3\O3-0671 Red LobsteMnat COA's.doc
.
.
.
The Developer shall construct 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: curb and gutter,
sidewalk, storm drain facilities, and sewer and domestic water system
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
.
27.
28.
29.
30.
.
A Grading Plan shall be preparëd by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed
and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
A Soil Report shaH 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 ennineered structures and pavement sections.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze
and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to
protect the proporties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of
downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary
to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NO I) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Planning Department
b. Department of Public Works
c. Temecula I=ire Prevention Bureau
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Col1straint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
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.
R:ID 1'\2003\03-0671 Red LobsterlFinat COA's.doc
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
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. I
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207~'
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in
accordance with City Standard No. 800.
d. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City of Temecula Standard No. 400. I
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. I
Public street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing
topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades. i
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. !
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accorda~ce
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. i
The Developer shall obtain an easement for ingress and egress over the adjacknt
property. I
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Feelas
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. I
I
The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportation
Unifomn Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with,
Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing
Chapter 15.08. I
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy I
i
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Deyeloper shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies: I
a. Rancho California Water District I
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans ánd
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
e.
f.
g.
R,ID 1'\2003\03-0671 Red LobsterlFinat COA's.doc
.
.
.
.
38.
The existing impwvements 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 DEPARTMENlT
39.
40.
41.
42.
. 43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Buildinø, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code;
California Admini:~trative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabled
Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code.
The City of Temecula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County
area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the adoption of this
ordinance on MarGh 31, 2003, this project will be subject to payment of these fees at the
time of building permit issuance. The fees shall be subject to the provisions of Ordinance
03-01 and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
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 ¡¡hall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of
Building and Safely. 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..
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
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 accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. Per
California Building Code Table 118-6, and additional accessible parking space
bringing the total to five (5) is required.
Provide house ele!ctrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm systemH.
Provide'appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
prior to permit issuance.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mochanical 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.
R:\D 1',2003\03-067 t Red Lobster\Fi"aJ COA's.doc
FIRE DEPARTMENT I
56. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are review;ed
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. I
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel! or
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix liLA, Table A-III-A-1. ~he
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1125 GI¡'M
at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 G~M
for a total fire flow of 1525 GPM with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be
adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type,lor
automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The ~ire
Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2,
Appendix III-A) I
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 1 hydrants, in a combination of on-site and
off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads ~nd
adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection
and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Rire
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 III-B) I
As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excess of
150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved ro~te
around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying
the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are
required. (CFC 903.2)
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
57.
58.
59.
Provide precise grading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persors
with disabilities.
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of t[e
building construction.
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on t e
approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. I
Show all building setbacks. I
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates t,he
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No.
94-21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site
within one-quarter mile ~f an occupied reside~ce.. I
Monday-Fnday 6.30 a.m. - 6.30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays
.
.
.
R:\D 1'12003\03-0671 Red Lobstcr\Fina1 COA's.doc
.
.
.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
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 søc 902)
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) føet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feE!t which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
Prior to building Gonstruction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via
all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
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)
Prior to issuancø of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective
Markers' shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be
of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and
industrial buildin!)s shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite
numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6)
inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family
residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and lor
numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
R:ID P\2003\O3.067 t Red LobsterlFinal COA's.doc
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 j' or
approval prior to installation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirem , nt
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 installatir' n.
(CFC Article 10)
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, a "Knox-Box" s~all
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. (CFC 902.4) I
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 eritry
system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) I
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate I~ne
painting and or signs. I
Prior to the building final, speculative buildings capable of housing high-piled
combustible stock, shall be designed with the following fire protection and life saf~ty
features: an automatic fire sprinkler system(s) designed for a specific commodity cláss
and storage arrangement, hose stations, alarm systems, smoke vents, draft curtairs,
Fire Department access doors and Fire department access roads. Buildings housing
high-piled combustible stock shall comply with the provisions California Fire Code Artible
81 and all applicable National Fire Protection Association standards. (CFC Article 81)1
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the
developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or abovegroJnd
tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any ot~er
hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire prevention
Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3)
Special Conditions I -
76. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan an~ a
simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to !he
Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact ¡ire
prevention for approval. '
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code
permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review ald
approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105)
The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Materiàl
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
77.
78.
R,\D 1'\2003\03-0671 Red Lobslel\Finat COA's.doc
10
.
.
.
.
.
.
Inventory StatemEtnt and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any
quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E)
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
General Conditions
79.
The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as,
regular solid waste containers.
80.
The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
a. All parkways within ROW, fencing, landscaping and on site lighting shall be
maintained by the property owner or the established maintenance association.
81.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
82.
The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris other agencies
83.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District letter dated November 21, 2003.
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 t() Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Namø
R:ID 1'\2003\03-0671 Red LobsteI\F.lDaI CONs.doc
11
@u
Bancha
'*
NOV 2 4 ZO03
i
....-.--....-... ...:._:J
B","'orDi"""'"
John E. Ho_.
"",id.",
Cooba F. Ko
S,.Vi""""d.",
8lephenJ.Corona
Ralph H. Daily
..... R. DraIœ
U.. D. Hennan
John V. Rooai
alii"",
phiJI p L. For'"
Interim c.Mral M.....,..
Dir"tor .f Finanœ- Tna",,",
E.P. "Boh"Lem~
Director of Engi...ring
Ke..eth C. Dealy
Ðireoto"füpemtio'"
.. Maintenan",
Pony R. Louck
ControU"
LiDda M. Fro....
Dimict Secretary/Ad"""""""..
Be",;"," M~a...
C. Michel Co_"
-_&Krl.....LLP
c.neral C"""",'
November 21,2003
Matthew Harris, Project Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCELS NO. 20 AND NO. 21 OF PARCEL MAP 30208
APN 921-830-027 AND APN 921-830-028
I
I
I
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within tþ.e
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water servide,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangemerits
I
between RCWD and the property owner. I
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for fees
and requirements. I
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing àn
Agency Agreement that assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. ¡
If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Servic~s
Representative at this office at (909) 296-6900.
Dear Mr. Harris:
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
AL (f~$
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
03\SB:at281IFCF
Rancho Califo"",, Waler Di.......
42135 Wi"h,,!ar Road' Po" am", B.. 9017 . T.m""la. California 925S9-9017 . (9091296-6900. FAX (909) 296.6660
.
ITEM #5
.
.
.
.
.
STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
Date of Meeting: April 7, 2004
Prepared by:
File Number
PA03-0321
Application Type:
Tentative Tract Map
Project Description:
Recommendation:
CEQA:
Dan Long
Title: Associate Planner
A Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 3.2 acres into 10 single-family
residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, located at
the southeast corner of Rancho Vista Road and Ynez Road (APN: 944-
092-024).
[8] Approve with Conditions
IJ Deny
IJ Continue for Redesign
IJ Continue to:
IJ Recommend Approval with Conditions
IJ Recommend Denial
[J Categorically Exempt
[J Negative Declaration
(Class)
:8J Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
DEIR
RITM\2003103-O321 TIM 31344\STAFFREPORT-l.doc
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Applicant:
Marchand Way Development, Inc.
Completion Date:
March 3, 2004
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
November 3,2004
General Plan Designation:
Residential, Low Medium (LM)
Zoning Designation:
Residential, Low Medium (LM)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Vacant
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. I
ANALYSIS I
The proposed project meets the standards within the Subdivision Ordinance and the
Deyelopment Code. Each lot meets the minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, width, and
depth. In addition, staff has ensured that each lot was designed to allow a ten-foot setback oh
one side to allow for vehicular access to the rear of the site. Each lot has direct access from
the proposed interior streets. The proposed interior streets have been designed to meet CitY
standards and shall be dedicated to the City. I
The open space lot (Lot 11) will transfer to City ownership by grant deed, once it is developed
to City standards. Lot 11 was designed to include a berm with landscaping in order to separat6
the interior street from Ynez Road. The areas along Rancho Vista Road, north of Lot 1 and
along Ynez Road, west of Lot 10 will include a landscape easement, which will be maintained
by the Community Services District. Front yard landscaping plans shall be required at the tim6
product review is formally submitted for review.
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Residential, single-family
Residential, single-family
Open space/Residential, single-family
Lot Area:
3.2 acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio
N/A
Landscape Area/Coverage
N/A
Parking Required/Provided
N/A
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
R:\T M\2003\O3-0321 TI'M 31344'Sf AFF REPORT-1.doc
.
.
.
.
.
.
The project site is located along Rancho Vista Road, designated as a secondary street and
Ynez Road, designated at a major street, both of which include significant vehicular trips. The
applicant has submitted 81 noise study to determine potential impacts to future residents due to
noise. As a mitigation measure, the applicant is required to construct solid masonry walls along
lot 1 and 10. Staff has inc:luded, as a condition of approval, that these walls be decorative and
planted with vines to soften the appearance. Other mitigation measures are included as
conditions of approval that require various construction methods to mitigate interior noise
levels.
The proposed project will result in the removal of approximately 19 trees. The applicant has
agreed to submit a final tree removal plan prepared by a professional arborist. Staff has
required the applicant to replant all living trees to be removed at a 1:1 ratio in the rear yards of
lots 1-6. Staff feels that the replanted trees and the off-site trees on the slope will maintain the
existing character of the ~:ite and area.
There is an existing equestrian easement on the eastern portion of the project site. The
applicant is not proposin'~ any new structures in this easement, however there is an existing
fence within the easement. This is a civil matter between the applicant and the persons that
hold the rights over this easement.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETI::RMINATION
[8J 1.
An initial study has been prepared and indicates that the project will have the following
potential significant environmental impacts unless mitigation measures are included as
conditions of approval. Based on the following mitigations, staff recommends
adoption of the mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
- ~~~
Air Quality: Dust and odors during Continuous watering down of site no less than
construction activities. 3x a day to comply with AQMD Rule 403-
Fuaitive Dust.
Air Quality: Degradation of Air Quality No wood burning stoves or fireplaces will be
throughout the South Coast Air Basin. permitted, unless study it provided stating there
will be less than sianificant impact.
Cultural Resources: Disturb archaeological, In the event any resources are discovered, all
historical or paleontological resources grading operations shall cease and the City will
during grading activities. be notified to determine, which professionals are
required to determine the sianificance.
Geology and Soils: unstable soils, The project shall comply with all
liquefaction, lateral spreading or collapse. recommendations included in the Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation for TIM 31344,
prepared by Lawson & Associates Geotechnical
ConsultinQ, Inc. dated Januarv, 2004.
Noise: Exposure of persons to noise levels Construct solid masonry walls 5-feet high along
in excess of noise standards in the General the northern property line of lot 1 and western
Plan. property line of lot 10.
R:\T M\2003\O3-0321 TIM 31344\STAFF REPORT-Ldoc
---- - - ---
Noise: Exposure of persons to noise levels The project shall comply with all
in excess of noise standards in the General recommendations included in the Tentative Tracl
Plan. Map 31344 Preliminary Noise Study, Urban
Crossroads, January 14, 2004 (Revised). I
Aesthetics: degrade the existing visual Replant all trees removed at a 1:1 ratio in the
character or quality of the site and its rear yards of lots 1-6. This will maintain thE!
surroundings? visual character of the site and area. I
I
The proposed map provides adequate access, circulation and developable lots. The proposed
map complies with the minimum lot size requirements (7,200 square feet) in the Developmen!
Code and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map and the zoning map an~
Subdivision Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 31344 based
upon the findings.
CONCLUSIO NIR ECOMM EN DATION
FINDINGS
Tentative Parcei/Tract Map
(Code Section 16.09.1400
1.
The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision arE!
consistent with the Development Code, General Plan and the City of TemeculJ
Municipal Code;
Tentative Tract Map No. 31344 is consistent with the General Plan, the Subdivision
Ordinance, the Development Code, and the Municipal Code because the project has
been designed in a manner that it is consistent with the General Plan, SUbdiViSiOn]
Ordinance, Development Code and the Municipal Code.
The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contrac
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965.
2.
3.
The proposed land division is not land designated for conservation or agricultural use
and has never been entered into any Willíamson Act Contracts.
The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of developmen
proposed by the tentative map.
4.
The project consists of a la-lot Tentative Tract Map on property designated for low-
medium density residential uses, which is consistent with the General Plan, as well as,
the development standards for the low-medium density residential zoning designation.
The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions 01
approval, will not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. I
An initial study and Mitigation Monitoring Program have been prepared for the projec~
KIT M\2003\O3-0321 TIM 31344\ST AFF REPORT-1.doc
.
.
.
.
.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
.
5.
which mitigated any potentially significant impacts of the proposed project. In addition,
the project has bE1en designed to reduce any significant impacts to the environment,
including noise, aesthetics, geologic and soils, and cultural resources.
The design of the, subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely to cause
serious public health problems.
The project has bl¡en reviewed and commented on by the Fire Safety Division and the
Building Safety Division. As a result, the project will be conditioned to address their
concerns. Furthe'r, provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development
Code to ensure ¡'hat the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The
project is consistent with these documents.
6.
The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in th'6 subdivision to the extent feasible.
The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. Prior to the construction of single-
family residences the applicant will be required to submit building plans to the Building
Department that comply with the Uniform Building Code, which contains requirements
for energy conserration.
7.
The design of the subdivision and 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 subdivision.
All required rights;-of-way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Map.
The Public Work:; Department and Community Services District have reviewed the
proposed division of land and adequate conditions and/or modifications have been
made to the Tentative Tract Map.
8.
The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements
(Quimby).
The applicant has been conditioned for payment of Quimby in-lieu fees prior to building
permits, which will address the City's parkland dedication requirements.
ATTACHMENTS
Plan Reductions - Blue Page 6
PC Resolution No. 2004 -- - Blue Page 7
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
PC Resolution No. 2004-- - Blue Page 9
Initial Study - Blue Page 10
Mitigation Monitorin Plan - Blue Page 11
R:\T Ml2003\O3-0321 TIM 31344\STAFF REPORT- t .doc
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
.
.
R,IT M\2003103-0321 TIM 313441STt\FF REPORT-1.doc
i
~-""',.,:o.~~ .. -~- ..
>-." "...;';":":"~~""'-;:~;¡~'-;"¡'~ .1""'::-,~'¡'~-',,:¡:;;':Y-~'-'
I!i ,
ji,,:è
¡~I'l
\,J:
~h~:Jlr
\" ~ ¡Hi: !~:;.~ .
! I;., ~ " r
-- __~A~¡
~~jj
, \{ .1!l
~ ¡~ I -- C ~ > ¡"¡'N,'i
Lj "~ ,"'I
!1~II,ì,',P .jl!! :~,,-,:,'¡! ,,:11
; ~:i~ < ¡ I j:,!
¡~~-:'" ¡j~li,j
,~ :,1 i ~?¡
, ¡Iii " "I :Î~¡ i
¡ . 'Î,li '
, ! I'
J ~~~i:~' >;i,",!,:;i ~'I ¡i~!,!¡ I~i ;,,:, ¡! hill' ~!' ¡!'Ii ¡m¡:i¡¡; ¡' f II. il" ¡i¡iil' ~I' ~!' îiii ¡il'~!,I'1 ~
. ~ ~~aU:tH :ã:~~ ¡I >llh¡¡ " 1;1 ~ M -; .,'~ 8
.~'o h ,..., ,¡'! ! ¡ , , :ä -" ~
¡.'ïf'¡¡i ."'!:i="¡~ ~.~~~ ~'e~~h~¡ '¡i" ,~, ~ '. °. ~
'. ~ --> .. , '~ã'~"~' ~ ~ ~~ .." ,. ' .
jl!~ g~¡~! ~'~~B~n~~a~a ¡II ij ~ '
~~e -,",- ;¡~3~~ a;¡>.~ '"" .,
,~~ ;'i',j ~~b~~ ~u~~ ¡' "
;¡ -! .; i ¡; ~ ~a ~ ~' ~~ i
, ' ~ .¡ a œS
~ ~~
~: -
.
I;~: ¡mi
",Ii ~:I!'
'~, °g ;.
':1 Î~I¡!
"I i@'¡:
¡i! ¡,!.~
¡¡¡"PI!
'0 !.¡
" ¡,
~--~
---~¡; !
II \
Ii ¡~
¡!
:::J ,.
I ¡ ~." ;¡
!\ I r,:t ¡ !
:¡ I ~ì:t'~¡¡
~:'/¡'!"
¡¡ i! > ! : ~ ~
~. I ~
~ !
¡ I
.
. .
'I ¡
.
ÞOOO3
t:I:1
Z
ÞOOO3
;¡;..
ÞOOO3
>--<
<:
'1jtrJ
>Þ0003
°::a
C.û;¡;..
In
~Þ0003
:::::~
;¡;..
'1:j
C,û
.......
C,û
,¡::..
,¡::..
..---" :
,/,~"/'
,..---' :
,"---'1"---' ,
,..---,,"---': j
'-ì'-(" I :
r//' \ \ \ ED! Ej! B ~
¡ ',\ ó ~' ~ 1 ~
'0\\\Z~:O'Ó~...'Ó=~ .
, "~-'Z~IZ~~'
! ,,\\g"ig~~~g-~.
I' . ~ \ \ \ : I
, !~ ~ , '\ \ I 1
, 0 ~ " , I .
I ~ ~ \ \ \ ' , .
: : i \.---:,,--L-. " -'
I V -. .1 u-./
:,- I
l ,~--'~JI1!!'" ----::i
""""" /-' ----_:-:=:=--~~1r---- ~~-: -
'\" \: \ " \ ...
. . ,~.' '\
\ "'.----;?" \,\\
\ Œ.3 \.\
'. ó'¡ '" \ ,
\ ~~ ~ \ \ '\ '
, g" , \
\, I \ ',\ \
, \ ,'\
YCIJ ,,1\,
, ó ~ I ¡' i 1, !
, Z - ,I
I t( ~ ,! i i
¡ 1 i !' ¡
: CIJ~ ~ ! 'IiI
g' :; ¡I!
~ : i!
, 1
CIJ !i
g ~ ¡Ii
g~ ~ Iii
, ' 1
II,
: , i'!
! I g~ ~ I )' i \ I
I Ó - \ ' 1
, ~ " " \ i
, ' \"
'-~-'-~'-~..--. ...-'.... I... '\ !!
0, '0 "71 "I
D ,/ V\i
, \ ,I
~ @ II II ij
ó:': ' LU-
~ ~ I., ,,~ \
9
. .
"""." . .. . .
OVOll y"", 0H0tM
-----~-~~~
._-~._-
ON lH3ndO"B'3CI ÁY,.-a«H:>IMI ......
(law~ç~lm°""",,l"vw. """"
~':
I I,
i ~ I!
III!! >
Iii II!
,i~I¡¡1
111:1111:1
\II ~'~I :':
~
~
¡II
,"
¡¡¡
z
«
...J
IL
0
Z
~
:)
IL
>-
~I
z.
~i
w.
a:1
ILl
i
.
i
.
i
I
i
¡
I
I
I
I
I
i
¡
I.
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
.
I
I
i
I
:
I
I
.
.
I
i
i
I
1
I
¡
i
I
I
i
!.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
R,IT M\2003103-0321 TIM 31344ISTAFF REPORT-1.doc
".- :"-;;--;:rY~;,?~""-""""""- ", --
~<:;)jJ)-"
.v ,
"""""'",:;;;:;;;:~iM'b~~m
-~
-~"",L",~"c,
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0321 , TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31344
SUBDIVID:lNG 3.2 ACRES INTO TEN SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO VISTA ROAD AND YNEZ
ROAD, KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 944-092-024.
WHEREAS, MDMG, Larry Markham, filed Planning Application No. PA03-0321
(Tentative Tract Map No. 31344), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan
and Development Code;
WHEREAS, the Application 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 the Application
on April 7, 2004, 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 hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based
upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, allleøal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFOiRE, 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. FineJinas. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following findings as required by Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code:
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision
are consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance and the
City of Temecula Municipal Code;
Tentative Tract Map No. 31344 is consistent with the General Plan, the Subdivision
Ordinance, the Development Code, and the Municipal Code because the project has
been designed in a manner that it is consistent with the General Plan, Subdivision
Ordinance, Development Code and the Municipal Code.
R:IT M\2003103-0321 TIM 31344~)C RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
I
B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land, which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965; I
The proposed property has not been used as agricultural land and has never enterJd
into any Williamson Act contracts. l
C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map. I
The project consists of a 10-lot Tentative Tract Map on property designated for low-
medium density residential uses, which is consistent with the General Plan, as well aÞ,
the development standards for the low-medium density residential zoning designation. I
D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions if
approval, will not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially a~d
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. ¡
An initial study and Mitigation Monitoring Program have been prepared for the projeJt,
which mitigated any potentially significant impacts of the proposed project. In additioh,
the project has been designed to reduce any significant impacts to the environme1t,
including noise, aesthetics, geologic and soils, and cultural resources. :
E. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements are not likely 10
cause serious public health problems. I
,
:
The project has been reviewed and commented on by the Fire Safety Division and the
Building Safety Division. As a result, the' project will be conditioned to address thJir
concerns. Further, provisions are made in the General Plan and the Development Code
to ensure that the public health, safety and welfare are safeguarded. The project lis
consistent with these documents. !
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating br
cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. 1
The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooli ,g
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. Prior to the construction of single-
family residences the applicant will be required to submit building plans to the Buildit'1g
Department that comply with the Uniform Building Code, which contains requirements
for energy conservation. l
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict wi h
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within t~e
proposed subdivision. I
All required rights-of-way and easements have been provided on the Tentative Map.
The Public Works Department and Community Services District have reviewed the
proposed division of land and adequate conditions and/or modifications have been made
to the Tentative Tract Map. I
R:\T M\2003\O3.0321 TIM 31344\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
H.
(Quimby).
The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements
The applicant has been conditioned for payment of Quimby in-lieu fees prior to building
permits, which will address the City's parkland dedication requirements.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Pursuant to California Environmental
Quality Act (UCEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, City staff prepared an Initial Study
of the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project. Based upon the findings
contained in that Study, City staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the
project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
has been prepared. A copy of the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring
Program are attached hereto as Exhibit "Au and incorporated herein by reference.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission thiH 7th day of April 2004.
John Telesio, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secrete.ry
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnosk'3, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. ~:004-_was duly and regularly adopted b~ the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7 day of April, 2004, by the
following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLø.NNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLII,NNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLII,NNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLII,NNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:IT M\2003103-0321 TIM 31344~'C RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
3
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\T M\2003\O3-0321 TIM 31344\ST AFF REPORT -1.doc
"- --,:)""-~~~;¡,.,~~~;",,._¿~- - - ~- , :._"~:
I
8 I.
~ ';.;"i.ff.;;¡¡¡;¡'~~Iii¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡#'¡,#;;yi;~;i.;;;:_"L
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA03-0321
Project Descripti on:
Tentative Tract Map No. 31344 subdividing 3.2
acres into ten single-family residential lots
generally located at the southeast corner of
Rancho Vista Road and Ynez Road, known as
Assessors Parcel No. 944-092-024.
DIF Category:
TUMF Fee:
Residential Detached
Single Family Residential
Assessor's Parc !1 No.:
944-092-024
Approval Date:
April 7, 2004
Expiration Date:
April 7, 2007
PLANNING DEPARTMEI,IIT
General Requirements
1.
The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order
made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One thousand three hundred and
fourteen dollars ($1314.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file
the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b)
and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required
above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition
[Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)].
2.
The applicant anc! owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protøct, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection frcom any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings
against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly
or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or any
agency or instrurnentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning
Application. 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. City shall promptly notify
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 the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense
R:IT Ml2003\O3-0321 TIM 31344\?C RESOLUTION ANO COA.doc
5
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
3.
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 conditiots
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 dateJ
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agr e
to indemnify, protect, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the Ci 's
own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedin(! s
against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting, directly
or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the approval of the City, or a~y
agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body
including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planni~g
Application. The City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include a?y
agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, office~s,
employees, consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents. City shall promptly noti,fy
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 the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interøst
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. I
I
If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasina plan shall be submitted to and approv~d
by the Planning Director. :
Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "B" (concePtu~1
Landscape Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintainJd
to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is determin~d that the
landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning shall have the authority to
require the property owner to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approvJd
landscape plan. The continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the
responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. !
I
The purple plum trees located on along Ynez Rd. adjacent to lot ten shall be replac~d
with Pepper trees to match the existing trees along Ynez Road to the south. I
The applicant shall intermix Sycamore trees along Rancho Vista Road along wilh
Pepper Trees to match the existing Sycamore trees along Rancho Vista Road. Peppør
trees shall be used an evergreen backdrop. I
I
The applicant shall show verification that the line of sight for egress from Street "A" onto
Ynez Road will not be obscured by any plantings, walls or other structures. I
The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planni~g
Application No. PA03-0321). I
No new permanent structures (including fences and/or walls) shall be located within br
block access of the 20-foot wide equestrian easement located on the southern portion bf
the project site. I
I
If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeologicaVcultur~1
resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidence pf
cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately
.
.
4.
.
R:\T M\2003103-0321 TIM 313441PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
6
.
13.
advise the City o:)f such and the City shall cause all further excavation or other
disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning at
his/her sole discr,~tion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems
reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fully
qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the
significance of the find.
Upon determining that the determination is not an archaeologicaVcultural resource, the
Director of Planning shall notify the property owner of such determination and shall
authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining that the discovery is an
archaeological/cultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property owner
that no further exGavation or development may take place until a mitigation plan or other
corrective measures have been approved by the Director of Planning.
Prior to Issuance of Grslding Permits
14.
15.
16.
.
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Division.
The applicant shall comply with all recommendations within the Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation for TIM 31344, prepared by Lawson & Associates Geotechnical
Consulting, Inc. dated January, 2004.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and
return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for
their files.
The applicant shall 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 pwviding documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
17.
18.
.
The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department:
a. A copy of .the Final Map.
b. A copy of .the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
i. Th'is 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.
This project is within a geologic fault zone.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for PA03-0321 , TIM
31:344 and is available for review at the City of Temecula Planning
Department
A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's)
i. 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
ii.
iii.
c.
R:IT M\2003\O3.0321 TIM 31344IPC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
7
space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all
buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. I
No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a
corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has be~n
formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or joinlly
owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areþs
and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be
sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority Ito
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 andlor
dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs ¡Of
maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall perrpit
enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval.
The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirem~nt
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 purposer-
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance ¡to
such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the commçm
areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting
membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. i
I
The applicant shall submit a development plan/product review application to revièw
architecture and landscaping for each residential lot, subject to the approval of the
Planning Director. i
1
The applicant shall submit a final noise study verifying compliance with the City's Noise
Ordinance. Said study shall be prepared in conjunction with precise grading plans a~d
require any additional mitigation measures, including construction methods, in order ¡to
comply with interior and/or exterior noise level standards in the Noise Ordinance.
All noise barriers/walls shall be constructed of decorative materials and include PilastJs
and a cap as approved by the Planning Director. I
The developer shall submit construction plans verifying compliance with all t~e
recommendations included in the Tentative Tract Map 31344 Preliminary Noise Study,
Urban Crossroads, January 14, 2004 (Revised). II
The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: <
a. Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans. The locatio'n,
number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. T~e
plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. T~e
cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for t~e
site. The plans shall be accompanied by the following items: I
i. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
ii.
iii.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
ii.
R:IT Ml2003103-0321 TIM 31344IPC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
8
.
.
.
.
b.
.
c.
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code
(Water Efficient Ordinance).
Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the
approved plan).
Tho locations of all existing trees that will be saved consistent with the
tentative map.
Automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of
all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets
and adjacent property for:
a) Front yards and slopes within individual lots prior to issuance of
building permits for any lot(s).
All landscaping excluding Temecula Community Services District
(TCSD) maintained areas and front yard landscaping which shall
include, but may not be limited to private slopes and common
areas.
Shrub planting to completely screen perimeter walls adjacent to a
public right-of-way.
Wall and Fence Plans consistent with the Conceptual Landscape Plans showing
the height, location and the following materials for all walls and fences:
De'~orative block, caps and pilasters for the perimeter of the project
adjacent to a Public Right-of-Way.
Wmught iron or decorative block with cap and wrought iron combination
for rear yards.
Wood fencing may be used for all side and rear yard fencing when not
restricted by a and b above.
Precise Girading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans
including edl structural setback measurements.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
b)
c)
Ii.
iii.
Roof-mounted m'3chanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision;
however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with
Director of Planning approval.
Prior to Issuance of Occ:upancy Permits
24.
All required landscape planting and irrigation. shall be installed consistent with the
approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of
Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The
irrigation system ¡:hall be properly constructed and in good working order.
Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection.
25.
26.
27.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this pe,rmit.
.
R:IT M\2003103-Q321 TTM 31344~'C RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
9
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
.
General Requirements
28.
29.
30.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing apd
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage cours~s,
and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review a d
revision.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from t e
Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of t e
City-maintained road right-of-way.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
I
I
31. 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. I
Prior to Approval of the Final Map, or unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved: subdivision improvemønt
agreements executed and securities posted. II
32. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall recei e
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Rancho California Water District
The Developer shall design and guarantee construction of the following
'improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise
Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works:
33.
.
c.
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
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
I
I
I
I
I
pu~lic
notEjd.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
I.
m.
.
R:IT M\2003103-Ð321 TIM 31344\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
10
.
a.
34.
.
35.
.
b.
Improve RI)ad (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R/W) to include dedication of
6' width street right-of-way, installation of 6' width street improvements, raised
median, p;~ving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, signing and striping,
utilities (inc:luding but not limited to water and sewer).
Improve F:ancho Vista Road (Secondary Highway Standards - 88' R/W) to
include the, installation of sidewalk, storm drain, street lights, signing and striping,
utilities (inc:luding but not limited to water and sewer).
Improve Street "A" and "B" (Restricted Local Road Standards - 50' R/W) to
include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street
improvemEmts, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited 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.
c.
d.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the
design of the streot improvement plans:
a. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P .C.C. and 1.00%
minimum elver A.C. paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with City Standard No. 800.
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 street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
All knucklos shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard No. 602.
All cul-de-sacs shall be constructed in accordance in City Standard No. 600.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV
shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as 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.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
b.
e.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
j.
k.
I.
A construction arl6a 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.
R:IT M\2003103-0321 TIM 31344\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
11
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
36.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Ynez Road on the Final Map with tile
exception of one opening as delineated on the approved Tentative Tract Map.
.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Rancho Vista Road on the Final Map.
Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestri~n
facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside coulty
Standard No. 805.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to tile
public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts pr
abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved
by the Department of Public Works. I
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. I
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with t~e
Final Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with t?e
map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review a~d
approval. I
The Developer shall comply with all constraints, which may be shown upon ~n
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property. I
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site prope~
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 improvemeljts
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 ~o
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 amodnt
given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. T~e
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall ~e
provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed a~d
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable
TV, and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence. I
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop.
Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. I
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated and noted on the final map. I
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 la?d
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
.
.
R:\T M\2003\03-0321 TIM 31344\PC RESOLUTION AND COAdoc
12
.
.
.
easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating,
"Drainage eaSemE!nts shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
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. Community Services District
c.
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
d.
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 cf any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
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 en!~ineered structures and preliminary pavement sections.
A Geotechnical Heport 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.
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 desi¡rn shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
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.
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.
R:IT M\2003103-0321 TIM 313441PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
13
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to t e
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. I
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 ~s
directed by the Department of Public Works. I
All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swailes
independent of any other lot. I
1
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits I
58. Prior to the first building permit, Final Map 31344 shall be approved and recorded. I
59. The developer shall vacate and dedicate the abutters rights of access along Ynez Road
pursuant to the new location of the driveway. :
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for revi~w
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. i
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 I 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 arl d
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. ,
I
The Developer shall pay to the City the Western Riverside County Transportatibn
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with.
Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions imPlementir' g
Chapter 15.08.
I
I
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receiVe
written clearance from the following agencies: I
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District I
c. Department of Public Works I
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. I
55.
56.
57.
60.
61.
62.
63.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
64.
65.
R:\T M\2oo3\o3-Q321 TIM 31344\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
14
.
.
.
.
.
.
66.
67.
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.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
Any previous existing conditions for this project or any underlying map will remain in full
force and effect unless superceded by more stringent requirements here.
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 Buildinll 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 residential land
division per CFC Appendix liLA, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this
project, a water ~,ystem capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating
pressure with a :~-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
III-A)
The Fire Preventbn Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 21/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Døpartment access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection 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
III-B)
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land
division per CFC Appendix III-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this
project, a water ¡:ystem capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating
pressure with a <I 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
III-A)
Maximum cul-de-:)ac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any
cul-de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for
commercial. (CFG 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4)
All traffic calmin£1 devices that could impede or slow emergency vehicle access are
prohibited, except those expressly approved by the fire prevention bureau individually on
a case by case basis when they maintain the required travel widths and radii.
R:IT M\2003\O3.0321 TTM 31344~'C RESOLUTION ANO COA.doc
15
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
Cul-"-"" """ ;m.~"o", "'h pl.m~ m"m ~;""'" 24 foot .00' ""J
travel width around the planters, not including parking. Hardscape areas are permissiIJle
provided that they meet the 80,000 lb. load requirements and are at road level. ¡
Private entry driveways with divider medians must be a minimum of 16 feet wide. n
each side unless the median is held back 30 feet from face of curb of perpendicular
road. I
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 (1'3)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) i
1
Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundr~d
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capablelof
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) ,
I
Prior to building construction, this development and any street within serving more than
35 homes or any commercial developments shall have two (2) points of access, via 1'11-
weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
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) I
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gat¡¡s
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) !
I
Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau! a
georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map
including parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided i~ a
ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83
(California Zone VI ) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as Ito
completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition.
.
.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
General Conditions
83. The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposallof
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. ,
I
Installation of any proposed TCSD maintained landscape improvements sh~1I
commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the TCSD Maintenance Superintend¿nt
and monitored in accordance with the TCSD inspection process. I
I
The developer, the developer's successors or assignee, shall be responsible for any
proposed TCSD maintained landscape areas until such time as maintenance duties lire
accepted by the TCSD. I
Property owners shall maintain all walls, fences, retaining walls and v-ditches within their
lots.
84.
85.
86.
.
R:IT M\2003103-Q321 TIM 31344\PC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
16
. 87.
88.
89.
The Street Improvement Plans shall show a Class II bike lane along Ynez Road as per
the City's Multi-Us,e Trails and Bikeways Master Plan.
Any damage caused to the existing Class II bike lane on Rancho Vista Road as a result
of construction shall be repaired or replace, as determined by the Department of Public
Works.
If Public Works requires a deposit instead of installation of a median, the deposit shall
include an estimated cost approved by TCSD for the landscape improvements.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
90.
Grading plans shall show a two (2) foot bench at top of slope for any proposed TCSD
maintenance areas
Prior to Final Map
91.
92.
.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
.
The developer shall satisfy the City's park land dedication requirement through the
payment of in-lieu fees equal to .14 acres of park land, based upon the City's then
current appraised park land valuation.
The perimeter landscape plans along Rancho Vista and Ynez Road as well as lots 11
and 12 shall be re,viewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. These
plans shall conform to TCSD standards and will be subject to all fees associated with the
plan check process
Surety bonds and a landscape improvement agreement shall be provided for the
landscape improvements to be made within the ROW along Rancho Vista and Ynez
Road as well as lots 11 and 12.
The developer shall initiate election proceedings by providing all required documentation
and paying all associated costs for the acceptance of perimeter landscaping and
residential street lighting into the TCSD maintenance program.
Landscape easements shall be dedicated to the TCSD over portions of lots 1 and 10
along Rancho Vista and Ynez Road.
Reservations shall be made to the property owners for lots 11 and 12. Once the
landscape improvøments have been completed and accepted by TCSD these lots will be
taken in ownership by the City by grant deed. TCSD will require a clear title report; soils
report and approv,ed legal description, which shall be provided by the developer.
If a landscaped along Ynez Road is to be installed the following will apply:
a. LandscapE' plans for the proposed raised medians shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Services.
The developer shall enter into an improvement agreement and post securities for
the landscaped median on Ynez Road.
b.
R:IT M\2003103-0321 TIM 31344IPC RESOLUTION AND COAdoc
17
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 1
Prior to the issuance of building permits or the installation of streetlights within t. e
development or on Rancho Vista and/or Ynez Road as a result of this project, whiche er
comes first, the developer shall file an application, submit an approved Edison streetli~ht
plan and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of arterial street lights
into the TCSD maintenance program. I
Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy 1
98.
99.
It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of
the TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
101. The developer of his assignee shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, t~e
most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. I
I
102. If a landscaped median along Ynez is to be installed the following will apply: I
a. The developer shall have completed the landscaped median to the satisfactiOn!' of
the Director of Community Services.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES I
1
103. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated June 19, 2003 from Rancho
Water. I
104. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated June 25, 2003 from the
Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. I
105. The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated August 6, 2003 from the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. i
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 lin
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. I
100.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
R:\T M\2003\O3-0321 TIM 31344IPC RESOLUTION AND COA.doc
18
.
.
.
I\aDchø
'*
B""'" orrn",,",~
Jeffrey L. Minkl.,
"...id~'
Jolm E. H~gland
S,. V;œ ",..;den'
Steph~J.Coro~
Ralph IL Daily
Ben R. Drake
IJaa D. H"""""
CnhaF.Ko
Offiœ~'
Jolm F. Henniga,
Gene"'¡ MMe..,
Phillip L. Fn"",
DU-ecto"mnMoe-
"""'~,
."Boh'Le=~
"fEngi"ooring
Kenneth C. Dealy
DU-ecto"fO,."üo",
.. Mam"'""
Pen-y R. Lon'"
Controll.,
LInda M. ""goao
Oiotrid -e!My/Admini""ü.e
Se""~ M~...,
C. Michael Cowett
Beat Beat .. KrIeg., LLP
Gen.,al Counool
June 19,2003
Dan Long, Associate Planner
City of Temeculà
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Offiee Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
TRACT MAP NO. 31344, APN 944-092-024
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0321
Dear Mr. Long:
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 and the construction of all required
water facilities.
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.
TIùs project is a residential condominium site with individual building owners
and a homeowners' association maintaining the common property and private
water and rITe protection facilities. As a condition of the project, RCWD
requires that the City of Temecula include a Reciprocal Easement and
Maintenance Agreement for these on-site private water facilities. In addition to
this agreement, RCWD will require individual water meters for each building.
If you should have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Âi:~ <t ~
~_Œ@ŒnmŒ~
JUN 2 0 2003 ~
! -
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
03\SB:att55\F1) 12- T6\FCF
c:
.J.allrie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
Bu.:! Jones, Senior Engineering Technician
By
Rannho Calilonili> Water Diem"
42135 Wmcl>~te, Road . Poat omœ B.. 9017 . Temooul.. CWfonria 92589-9017 . (909) 296-6900 . FAX (909) 296-6860
j ~A- COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. :MMUNITY HEALTH J NCY
~ DEPARTMENf OF ENVIRONMENTAL HbLTH
June 25, 2003
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
ATfN: Dan Long:
RE: TRACT MAP NO. 31344 (1 LOT)
Dear Gentlemen:
1. The Department o.f Environmental Health has reviewed Tract Map 31344 and
reco.mmends:
a A water system shall be installed in accordance with plans and specifications as
approved by the water company and the Environmental Health Department.
Pennanent prints of the plans o.f the water system shall be submitted in triplicate,
with a minimum scale no.t less than o.ne inch equals 200 feet, along with the
o.riginal drawing to the County Surveyor's Office. The prints shall show the
internal pipe diameter, locatio.n o.f valves and fire hydrants; pipe and jo.int
specifications, and the size of the main at the junction o.f the new system to the
existing system. The plans shall co.mply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1,
Chapter 7 o.f the California Health and Safety Code, Califo.rnia Administrative
Code, Title 11, Chapter 16, and General Order No.. 103 o.f the Public Utilities
Commission of the State o.f California, when applicable. The plans shall be
signed by a registered engineer and water company with the following
certificatio.n: "1 certify that the design of the water system in Tract Map 31344 is
in acco.rdance with the water system expansion plans o.f the Rancho California
Water District and that the water services, sto.rage, and distribution system will be
adequate to. provide water service to such "Tract Map". This certification does not
co.nstitute a guarantee that it will supply water to. such Tract Map at any specific
quantities, flows or pressures for fire pro.tectio.n o.r any ather purpose. A
respo.nsible official of the water co.mpany shall sign this certificatio.n. The plans
must be submitted to the Countv Survevor's Office to review at least two weeks
PRIOR to. the request far the recordatio.n o.f the final inap.
.
I
2. This Department has no. written statement from Rancho. California Municipal Water I
District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and every lot in the subdivisio.n an
demand providing satisfactory financial arrangements are co.mpleted with the subdivider.
It will be necessary for financial arrangements to. be made PRIOR to. the reco.rdatio.n of
the final map.
œ~u~ ~ ~ ~;'~Î
./{
ocal Ealorcement Asency . ro Box 1280. Riverside. CA 92502.1280' (909) 955-8982' FAX (909) 781-9653 . 4 ~- ,~,side. CA 92501
md Uee and Water Enslneerins . ro.. Box 1206, Riverside, CA 92502-1206 . (909) 955-8980 . FAX (909) 955-8903 . 4OBO Lemon Slreet, 2nd Roor, Rtferside, CA 92501
.
Page Two
Attn: Dan Long
June 25, 2003
.
3. This subdivision is wil:hin the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to
the sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed in accordance with plans
and specifications as approved by the District, the County Surveyor's Office and the
Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the sewer system shall be submitted
in triplicate, along wid~ the original drawing, to the County Surveyor's Office. The prints
shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete profiles, pipe and
joint 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 singed by a registered
engineer and the seweJ district with the following certification: "I certify that the design
of the sewer system in Tract Map No. 31344 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 Tract
Map". The plans must be submitted to the County Surveyor's Office to review at least
two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the final map.
4. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to be completely finalized PRIOR to
recordation of the final map.
5. It will be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be completely finalized PRIOR to
the recordation of the :final map.
.
. . g Environmental Health Specialist
.
1995 MALT STREET
RIVERSI~E, CA 92501
909.955.1200
909.788.99~5 FAX
I
81685.1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CON1ROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRI W ΠI
August 6,2003 I~Œ @'ŒO- I~.
Illil AUG 1 3 2003 m
City ofTemecula Ð
Planning Department ,By
Post Office Box 9033 . - I
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: Dan Long I
i
Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: PA03-0321 (TIM 31344) I
The District does not usually review land diyisions/land use cases or proYide State Divi~ion
of Real Estate letterslflood hazard reports for projects that are located within incorpor~ted
Cities. Exceptions are made for cases with items of specific interest to the District inclu~ing
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, þnd
District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). The District has I not
reYiewed the proposed project in detail and the following comments do not in any ray
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to
flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issues.
WARREN D. WILLIAMS
Gt~eraJ Manager-Chief Engineer
PA03-0321 is a proposal to design and construct a 15 unit condominium located on the
southeast corner of Rancho Vista Road and Ynez Road within the city of Temecula.
The entire site is located within the unshaded X boundary as delineated on Panel INo.
0607420005B of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued in conjunction with the Nati6nal
Flood Insurance Program, administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agdncy
(FEMA). I
The project is located within the limits of the District's Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Lea
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid
for by cashier's check or money order written to Flood Control District prior to the issuance
of building or grading permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the timb of
issuance of the actual permit.
The following information of a general nature is proYided herewith for your use:
. This project may need to obtain an applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit coverage from the State Water Resources Control Board or the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) - San Diego Region.
Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approval should not be giyen until the
City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be
exempt.
/
.
.
.
4
83685.1
City of Temecula
. Re: PA03-0321 (TIM 31344)
-2-
August6,2003
. If the mapped floodplaJin is impacted by the project, the City should require the applicant
to obtain a Section 1ß01/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and
Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is
exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality
Certification may be rE~quired from the RWQCB - San Diego Region prior to issuance of
the Corps 404 pemnit.
Should you haye any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Teresa
Tung at 909.955.4050.
Very truly yours,
S/w-e- ~
STEPHEN C. THOMAS
Senior Civil Engineer
. TT:slj
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
.
'-'~":j¡¡;~'
!
, -L'
~...._" "'K" '""""",-." '""
,c.",- >, '1M '.. -",-,.,,- ,~",",'.,^'-"",
R:\TM\2003\O3-0321 TIM 31344ISTAFFREPORT-I.doc
',' '::j"t;1;-'¿,h~æ'-.-'w'21!!Æ
~-,""'Ii<~"
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A RESOLUTION ENTITLED
"A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLAR,ð,TION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM,
FOR THE: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31344 (PAO3-0321),"
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO
VISTA ROAD AND YNEZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 944-092-024
WHEREAS, MDMG, Larry Markham filed Tentative Tract Map 31344, Planning
Application No. PA03-0321 , in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan,
Subdivision Ordinance and Development Code and an initial study was prepared in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program was
prepared including, in the time and manner prescribed by State, local law and CEQA
Guidelines;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at regular meetings, considered Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program on April 7, 2004, at duly noticed public
hearings 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 thl~ conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Prclgram as attached Exhibit "A" subject to and based upon the findings
set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, allle9al preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
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 referencH.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance Adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigati'Jn Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study, which was prepared
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.
R:\T M\2003\03-0321 TIM 31344\I'C MND Rese.doc
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temec la
Planning Commission this 7th day of April 2004.
.
John Telesio, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) I
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss I
CITY OF TEMECULA ) ,
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby ceJfy
. that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted bK the Planning Commis1>iOn
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7' day of April, 2004, by tlh¡' e
following vote of the Commission:
I
[SEAL]
.
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
R:\T M\2003\O3-0321 TIM 31344\PC MND Reso.doc
.
ATTACHMENT NO.4
.
INITIAL STUDY
.
R\T Ml2003\O3-0321 TIM 31344ISTAFF REPORT-1.doc
10
---::. -~~:"';~-,.
- :i!I....""",-'--
- "'---
-,;:---
r~~C;-_- :~~~IiI!II~';" -
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Pro.ect Title:
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is re uired
.
R:IT M\2003103-0321 TIM 31344\Draft Initial Study.doc
Environmental Checklist
PA03-0321 , Tentative Tract Ma 31344
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dan Lon, Associate Planner 909 694-6400
Southeast corner of Rancho Vista Rd. and Ynez Rd.
APN: 944-092-024
Marchand Way Development, Inc.
31630 Railroad Canyon Rd., Ste. 9
Can on Lake, CA 92587
Low Medium, Residential
Low Medium, Residential
The proposed project consists of a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide
3.2 acres (3.3 gross) into 10 single-family residential lots. The
minimum lot size is 7,200 square feet and an average lot size of
9,291 square feet is proposed. There is also an open space lot
(7,342 square feet) that will be dedicated to the City. The project
includes a single access point from Ynez Road. Two interior cul-de-
sac streets are proposed on-site to provide direct access to each lot.
The proposed site is generally flat with minimal vegetation. There are
some pepper and eucalyptus trees on the eastern portion of the site.
Approximately 19 trees will be removed as a result of the project,
none of which are considered threatened, sensitive or endangered or
to provide habitat for any threatened, sensitive or endangered
species.
The project site is surrounded by residential uses and vacant land
designated for future residential uses. To the south, east and west
the land is designated as low-medium residential uses and the land
is currently developed as single-family residential uses. The parcells)
to the north is vacant land designated as medium density residential.
Currently there is not a proposal for any development on the vacant
site to the north. It is anticipated that the site will eventually be
developed as a residential project. Said vacant site is currently fallow
and is periodically grubbed for weed abatement. The site consists of
rollin hills with natural draina e courses throu hout the site.
None
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
x
X
X
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and al
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared.
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 ro'ect ro onent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared. I
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, I and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is re uired.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impacf' or "potentially $ignificant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately a1alyzed 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. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is re uired, but it must anal ze onl the effects that remain to be addressed.!
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, b~cause all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NfGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated p~rsuant to
that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures¡ that are
im osed u on the ro osed ro'ect, nothin further is re uired. .
Signature
Date
Printed name
For
.
R:\ì M\2003103-Q321 TIM 31344\Draft Initial Study.doc
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage sc:enic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock olltcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic hi hwa ?
Substantially degrade 'ihe existing visual character or
uali of the site and its surroundin s?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
a.
b.
c.
d.
AESTHETICS. Would the project:
x
x
1 a, b, d. The proposed project is a tentative tract map for 10 single-family lots that conforms to the General
Plan, Development Code, Zoning designation, and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. The surrounding land
uses include residential and the project will be developed in a similar fashion. The project site does not include
a scenic vista, or scenic resourc:¡s such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a state scenic
highway. The project will not block any views protected under state or local ordinance since the project is not
located on or near a state scenic highway. All lighting will be required to conform to the Riverside County
lighting Ordinance 655, which prohibits light spillage onto adjacent properties and certain fixtures which have
~tential to emit glare into the sky.
.c. The project will include the e.limination of approximately 19 mature trees (eucalyptus and pepper trees) on
the project site. The trees currently provide a natural buffer from the between Ynez Road and the existing
residences to the east. To the e,3st of the project site exists a significant number of trees that will remain and
maintain the natural buffer between the project site and the existing residences. Also, as a condition of
approval the applicant is required to replant all trees removed at a 1:1 ratio in the rear lots of lots 1-6. Only
trees that are deemed alive (subject to an arborist report) will be required to be replaced.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assesument Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as
an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a.
b.
Issues
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-a ricultural use?
Conflict with existing 2oning 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-a ric:ultural use?
x
x
R:IT M\2oo3103-o321 TIM 31344\Draft Initial Study.doc
3
Comments:
2.a.-c. According to the General Plan (figure 5-4), the proposed project site is not identified as an agricultural
resource, nor is the site zoned for agricultural uses. The project site is not located in an existing en\tironmen8
which could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses because there is not agriculturailiand uses
in the immediate vicinity. The General Plan (figure 5-5) does not identify the site as land under Williamson Act
contract. I
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable ai~ quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the fbllowing
determinations. Would the project: !
I
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air uali Ian?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existin or ro'ected air uali 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 uantitative thresholds for ozone recursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of eo Ie?
Comments:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
j"
:', No
~ Impact'
. Issues.and Supporting Infbrmatiorì'.SQurcés ,
-: .. ,'".' ... co c' .
.. . "Co'. " ". .
x
x
I
3. a. c. d. The applicant has prepared and submitted an air quality impact analysis (Tentative Tractl31344 Air
Quality Impact Analysis, Urban Crossroads, December 26, 2003) which has concluded that the project will not
have a significant impact on air quality, nor will it have a significant impact on the South Coast f,ir Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). For project related
emissions, an AIR Resource Board (ARB) air emissions model Urbemis was used to forecast proj~ct related
emissions. Said analysis also concluded that the project will not substantially contribute to an ~xisting or
projected air quality violation, or result in a considerable net increase of any pollutants including Reactive
Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), or Particulate
Matter (PM-10). The analysis also concludes that the project will not conflict with any secondary ~ources of
potentially significant impacts including growth projections in underlying regional plans, microscalel"hot spof'
potential, generation of odors, dust or other nuisances, or hazardous or air toxic emissions.
The project is strictly a 10-lot residential subdivision, which will have a less than significant impact on air quality
on a regional scale. Also, the project's construction activities do not exceed any of the thresholds for pollutant
species. The project is not located in or near any sensitive receptors such as a retirement communi"', church,
or park, and will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. I
b. e. The project will not create any long term objectionable odors affecting a substantial number ¡of people,
because the project consists of a 10-lot residential subdivision and no objectionable odors are anticipated to be
emitted as a result of the project. Temporary impacts typically associated with construction activities are.
anticipated, however they are considered less than significant with mitigation measures in place. I
R:\T M\2oo3\O3-o321 TIM 31344\Draft Initial Study.doc
4
The study did not take into con3ideration wood burning stoves and/or fireplaces. As a condition of approval,
wood burning stoves and fireplaces will not be permitted. Only natural gas fireplaces and/or electric heating
and cooking devices will be permitted.
_mporary impacts due to construction of the site may be expected, however the impacts are not considered
significant and conditions of approval have been incorporated that will mitigate these temporary impacts.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project?
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 advE!rse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the
California Department c,f 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, filling, hydrological
interru tion, 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 im ede the use of native wildlife nurse sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, SUGh 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 Ian?
Comments:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
x
x
x
x
x
4.a.-.f. Staff has reviewed the proposed project and it has been determined that there will not be any impacts to
biological resources as a result of the proposed project. According to the General Plan (figure 5-3) the project
site is not identified as maintaining sensitive habitats, including coastal sage scrub, oak woodlands, riparian
forests, vernal pools or blue line streams. The project site is predominately flat, it does not include any
sensitive, threatened or endangered species (vegetation nor wildlife) and there are not any existing wetlands or
natural drainage courses on the, project site. There will be approximately 19 trees removed from the project
site; however, they primarily consist of pepper, eucalyptus and palm trees. All trees removed shall be removed
at a 1:1 ratio.
.
R:IT M\2003103-0321 TIM 31344\Draft Inllia Study.doc
Is~ues and Supporting Information Sources
Potenij~lIý
SignUi<;ant
Impact
Impact
5.
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a.
x
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeolo ical resource ursuant to Section 15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or uni ue eolo ic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Comments:
I
I
I
I
t
. I
5. a. b. d. The applicant has prepared a phase I cultural resource assessment (A phase I cultural 'Resource
Assessment of Tentative Tract Map 31344, Jean A. Keller Ph.D, October 2003) for the project site ànd it has
been determined that the proposed project will not disturb any cultural resources. The phase I analysis took
into consideration research conducted at the California Archaeological Inventory, California I Historical
Resource Information System, and Eastern information Center. The research has shown that the project site
had not been included in a previous cultural resource study and that no archaeological sites ~ad been
recorded within the project boundaries. The analysis alludes to ten (10) cultural resource surveys ha~ing been
conducted within a one-mile radius of the project site and archaeological sites of neither prehistoric nor historic
origin have been observed. i
I
While the Temecula area has been known to include prehistoric, historic and paleontological reso~rces, the.
project site is not believed to include any significant resources because the project site does not include tool
quality lithic materials, bedrock outcrops suitable for food processing, rock art, or shelter. The site i~ also void
of any permanent source of water and there are not any defensive locations of the preferred type for habitation
by nomadic and indigenous peoples. The project site certainly could have produced vegetal ahd faunal
resources that may have produced food and components for medicines and tool production and co~1 struction;
however, this cannot be verified in the current state of the project site. As a precaution, the below mitigation
measure and condition of approval will be implemented into the project.
I
c. The Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan identifies the project site cis a highly
sensitive for paleontological resources (figure 5-7). As a condition of approval, the project will be r~quired to
stop all work if any paleontological or archaeological resources are discovered. The General Plan requires that
archaeologists and/or paleontologists be retained where the presence of archaeological and/or paleclntological
resources are identified. If in the event any resources of any historical, cultural or paleontological ~ature are
discoyered, the City will be notified as well as the appropriate professionals to determine the origin of the
resources. i
I
b.
x
x
c.
d.
x
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: I
I
. . 0 p;otentiålly . I
Potentially Signifi<;ant Less¡Tha&'. oN?'
Issues'andSupporting Il'1fprmation Sources 0 Signifièåht. .."Unfess .'Si!Jl)if;ça,ht::
Impa~.. . MitigaÎiòn ImpaCt', Impact
Ihcomnråted , .L
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial X ,
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death I
involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on X I
R:\T Ml2oo3\O3-0321 TIM 31344\Draftlnitial Study.doc I
6
.
d.
the most recent Alquisl-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the Statu Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geolo S ecial Publication 42.
Stron seismic round shakin ?
Seismic-related round failure, includin Ii uefaction?
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil?
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
s readin ,subsidence, Ii uefaction or colla se?
Be located on expansivl~ soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or ro ert ?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
Comments:
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
b.
c.
e.
6.a.-e. The applicant has provided a copy of a geotechnical report (Geotechnical Investigation within the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone, Lot 252, Tract 3833, Leightin and Associates, Inc., March 1989) which
was prepared in March of 1989 for a previously proposed project for a church facility on the project site. Staff
has forwarded a copy of said report to the Riverside County Geologist and it was determined adequate for the
proposed project. The project determined the following:
.
1. Faults and fault related features were not encountered during the subsurface investigation of the
subject site.
2. The potential for ground surface rupture is considered low.
3. A maximum peak be'drock acceleration of .61g could occur should a magnitude 6.0 earthquake
occur along the Wildcmar branch of the Whittier-Elsinore fault located southwest of the site.
4. The potential for liquefaction, seismically-induced settlement, and differential settlement is
considered low.
5. No landslide deposits were encountered nor were any ancient landslides known to exist on the site.
6. The possibility of seiches, tsunamis and inundation due to failure of large water storage facilities is
considered low.
7. The potential of flooding at the site is considered low.
8. Undocumented fill soils were encountered to a depth of 26.5 feet in Trench T-1. These soils spear
to have been placed in uniform compacted lifts; however it appears that there is no documentation
for placement of this fill.
.
The applicant has subsequently prepared and submitted a follow-up Geotechnical Investigation
(Preliminary Geotechnicéllinvestigation for the Tentative Tract No. 31344 located on the northeast side
of Ynez Road and Southeast of Rancho Vista Road, Lawson & Associates Geotechnical Consulting,
Inc., January 13, 2004) which addressed the proposed project of 10 single-family lots. The previous
study by Leightin and ABsociates, Inc., March 1989 was incorporated into the current study and was
revised accordingly.
R:IT M\2003103-0321 TIM 31344\Dralt Initial Study.doc
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
The following Mitigation measures are required as part of the project:
1.
The project shall implement all recommendations included in the Preliminary Geotechnical.
Investigation dated January 13, 2004.
2.
A 10-foot deep excavation and recompaction of fill across the entire site shall be comp eted.
3.
Fault Trench T-1 shall be identified during rough grading.
The complete removal of all loose fill soils is required in the area of trench T -1.
The removal and recompaction of existing soils shall be monitored by a representatiJe of LGC
or a qualified professional as approved by the City of Temecula.
Post-tension slabs shall be used for all building construction on the project site.
All earthwork and grading shall be performed in accordance with all applicable requir~ments of
the Grading Excavation Code and the Grading Manual of the City of Temecula, in addition to the
provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code, including Appendix 33. !
I
All grading activities shall be performed in accordance with applicable provisio?s of the
Standard Grading Specifications (Appendix F) as indicated the Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation dated January 13, 2004 by LGC, unless specifically revised in said studY.!¡
All on-site debris shall be removed from the site prior to grading activities.
I
The project geotechnical enginee.r or a qualified professional shall be notified at appropriat~..
times to provide observation and testing services during clearing operations and: to verify.
compliance with the Mitigation Measures pertaining to geotechnical standards. I
Near surface, low density and potentially collapsible soil materials such as, but not limited to
loose manmade fill and alluvium shall be removed to underlying competent alluvium or Pauba
bedrock, from each area to achieve compacted fill.
Prior to placing structural fills, the exposed bottom surfaces in each removal area shoyld first be
scarified to a depth of 6-inches or more, watered or air dried as necessary to achieve near
optimum moisture conditions and then recompacted in-place to a minimum relative cÓmpaction
of 90 percent. I
Excavation activities, including removal and replacement of soils adjacent to an existing
structure or utility shall be completed in one eight hour working day or less. I
Excavation shall not be performed during periods of rain or threat of rain. I
In the event that excessive moisture contents or excessively dry soils are encountere~, LGC or
a qualified professional and the City of Temecula shall be notified immediately.
Vibratory type compaction equipment shall not be utilized.
During compaction activities, the applicant shall coordinate with LGC or a qualified professional.
The project geotechnical consultant or a qualified professional shall be present during III on-site.
grading operations. I
I
R:\T M\2003\03-0321 TIM 31344lDralt Initial Study.doc
19.
. 20.
21.
All on-site drainagle shall be directed away from structures and towards the streets and/or storm
drain facilities.
All retaining walls shall be constructed in accordance to the recommended methods within the
preliminary geotechnical study prepared by LGC, dated January 13, 2004.
If grading and/or Gonstruction activity does not commence within 3 years of the preparation of
the preliminary gl30technical study, dated January 13, 2004, the applicant shall submit an
updated report, subject to City of Temecula review and the review of the Riverside County
Geologist.
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Create a significant hazard to the public
environment through th3 routine transportation,
dis osal 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?
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
uarter mile of an existin or roposed 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 ha:3 not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workin in the ro'ect ansa? .
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workin in the ro'ect ar'3a?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation Ian?
Expose people or struc'!ures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involvin'~ wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacen1 to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixE,d with wildlands?
Comments:
a.
b.
c.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Issues
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
e.-h. The proposed project consists of a 10-lot single-family residential subdivision. There are no hazardous
terials beyond those typically used for residential uses to be stored or maintained on-site. The project site is
not located in a manner that would interfere with any emergency plan. The project site is located in an
urbanized area and should not Hxpose people to injury or death involving wildfires because there are no wild
R:IT M\2003103-0321 TIM 31344\Draft Initial Study.doc
9
I.."" 1=1'" '" Ih, 'mm""", ,",o'y olth, pm;'" ",. Th'ÆIM'. 'œo b, """",,,to' Ih" 00"" loct" Ih,
result of the proposed project. 1
I
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
re uirements?
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 ermits have been ranted?
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 floodin 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
olluted runoff?
Otherwise substantial! de rade water ualit?
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
ma?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would im ede 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 leyee or dam?
Inundation b seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? i X
Comments: :
8.a.-j. The proposed project is required to comply with all current regulations in regards to National! Pollution
Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES)and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The project
is not anticipated to deplete ground water systems because the proposed project will not include the ¡drilling of
any new water wells and there are open space areas proposed on the project site to allow lor water
percolation. While the drainage pattern will undoubtedly change as a result of the project, it is anticipated the
result will be less than significant because the new drainage system will not alter a natural drainage course nor
will it increase run-off that would create flooding on- or off-site. No streams or natural drainage courseþ exist on.
the project site. The project site is not located in flood prone area as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
as concluded by the geotechnical investigation prepared by Leighton Associates, Inc., (1989) the po$sibility of
R:\T M\2003\03-0321 TIM 31344\Draft Initial Study.doc I
10
I
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Issues and Supporting Informatiôì,Sources
'. ' "', '0"
l~otèntially
PòÎÈmtiãlly: SignifiCant.
Signifk:ànt;, Unless '"
'.~m~ct.....,.,v. Mitigation,
" Ihco rated~"
,.; No
". Impaèt
x
x
x
X
x
X
x
x
x
flooding at the site is considered low. The project site is not located on or near the coast and as concluded by
the geotechnical investigation prepared by Leighton Associates, Inc., (1989) the possibility of seiches,
tsunamis or mudflow is considere!d low.
9. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
c.
Ph sicall divide an established communi?
Conflict with any appliGable 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 purpo:¡e of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Comments:
a.
b.
x
9.a.-c. The proposed project complies with the General Plan, Developmènt Code and Subdivision Ordinance of
the City of Temecula. The site is located in an urbanized area adjacent to residential uses and is zoned the
same or similar (residential) to the surrounding properties. The project site is not located within the boundaries
of a habitat conservation plan or community conservation plan.
. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
b.
x
a.
10.a.-b. The project site is not II)cated in an area utilized for the excavation of mineral resources. Nor is the
area anticipated to provide for future mineral resources. The General Plan does not denote the project site as a
potential site for mineral excavation.
.
R:IT M\2003103.{)321 TIM 31344\Draft Initial Study.doc
11
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
a encies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
round borne vibration or roundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
ro'ect?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the ro' ect?
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
ro'ect area to excessive noise levels?
Comments:
11. NOISE. Would the project result in:
" ,
Issues.and Supporting Inform¡ition Spù(ces
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Potentially
. . Potentially . Significant
, SlgÔìfièanfUnless
..' \ hi\í>;Çi.: . Mitigation
. . ; Inèo rated
x
x
less Than[
Significant;
Impact '
. i
x
x
x
x
I .
11.a,-f. The project will potentially expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of !;tandards
established in the General Plan. There may be temporary vibration or activities resulting in a nois6 level in
excess of the standards within the general plan and noise ordinance that will be a result of copstruction
activities. These activities will be temporary and will not result in long term significant impacts. The proposed
project is not located within 2 miles of a public or private airport or airport land use plan. The project is located
on an intersection that includes a major and secondary street classification. A noise study (Tentative Tract Map
31344 Preliminary Noise Study, Urban Crossroads, November 2003) has been prepared for the project site
and lists specific recommended mitigation measures to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance for in~ernal and
external living areas for residential uses. The noise study concludes that the principal source of noise is the
product of vehicles from the adjacent streets Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road. I
I
I
The following Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures are required as part of the project: I
I
1. The applicant shall comply with the preliminary noise study (revised) prepared for Tentative Tract Map
31344, dated January 14, 2004 as well as any supplemental documents and/or studies I
2. Construct a solid masonry wall 5 feet in height along the western and southern property lines of lot 10.
I
3, Construct a solid masonry wall 5 feet in height along the northern and eastern property lines 01 lot 1,
4. A "windows closed" condition requiring a means of mechanical ventilation (e.g. air conditioninj) shall be
provided for all lots. I
5. All lots shall be constructed utilizing weather-stripped solid core exterior doors and exterior wail/roof.
assembles should be free of cut outs and openings. I
R:\T M\2003\O3-o321 TIM 31344\Draft Initial Study.doc
12
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit a final noise study shall be prepared for the project. This report
shall finalize the noise requirements based upon the precise grading plans and actual building design
specifications.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSIIIIG. 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 !lumbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of re lacement housin elsewhere?
Comments:
12.a.-c. The proposed project will result in a net increase of 10 single-fam¡'ly residences, which is not
considered a substantial growth in population. There will not include the extension of any existing roads and
will not cut-off circulation of existing roads. The project will not include the destruction or replacement of any
existing residences as the project site is currently vacant.
a.
b.
c.
a.
x
x
. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision 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 rotection?
Police rotection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other ublic facilities?
x
X
X
X
X
Comments:
13.a. The proposed project will add a total of 10 single-family residences to the community. While there will be
public services required for the project, there will not be a significant impact to the communities public service
.stem including fire, police, schools, parks, utilities or any other public facilities and/or services. There are
rrently adequate public servicE~s located in the project area suitable to accommodate the proposed project.
R:IT M\2003103-0321 TTM 31344\Draft Initia' Study.doc
13
14. RECREATION.
Potentially
Signirlcant
.1 .
LessTt1a~
Signirlcantj No
Impact, Irnpšct
Potentially
Significant'
Impact
Issues and SupportingJnformation Sources
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facili 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?
Comments:
x
a.
x
b.
14.a.-b. The proposed project will not result in substantial deterioration of existing regional or neighborhood
parks; however, it can be anticipated that the residences of the proposed project will utilize the parks in the
area. Since the proposed project consists of 10 single-family residential lots, the impacts are anticipated to be
less than significant. The proposed project will be required to pay the appropriate Quimby fees, in adcordance
with City of Temecula ordinances, which will provide for future park facilities. I
1
I
I
15. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project:
", v ~ Po)entially
" "'f'cötentia~y.: '. Significant
, Significant Unless
'Impact " . Mitigation'
'" " . . Inco rated
a.
x
b.
x
c.
x
d.
I
i
I
I
,
!
I
I
I
15.a.-g. The estimated number of vehicle generated trips per weekday during peak hours for the proposed.
project is 96; during weekends the estimated number of trips is 101 (Trip Generation by Microtrans, ~th edition,
2003). In addition, the Institute of Traffic Engineers 6th edition has set a standard daily trip generatio~ forecast
for single family residential uses, which are 10 per unit. Using this standard, it can be assumed that there will
R:\T M'2003\O3-0321 TIM 31344IDraft Initial Study.doc
x
X
X
e.
f.
g.
14
be 100 daily trips generated by the proposed project. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the
General Plan forecasts that the average daily trips at build-out for these potions of Ynez Road are 30,000
ëetween Rancho Vista Road and Pauba Road) and 7,400 for Rancho Vista Road (Between Ynez Road and
rgarita). In comparison to build-out daily forecasts, the proposed project will have a less than significant
pact to increased traffic in regards to traffic load and capacity. The current streets have been designed and
constructed to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed project will have a less than significant
impact on the level of service to the roads and highways because the roads and highways were designed and
constructed to handle the proposed project. In addition, the project site is zoned residential and the project has
been designed and proposed at a density much lower than the maximum density allowed, thus reducing
maximum amount of vehicle trips. The proposed project does not include any new public streets outside the
project site that will result in a change of traffic patterns, traffic levels or result in a substantial safety risks. The
project will not change the street pattern or design that will result in increased hazards due to design features.
The project will include an interior street parallel to an existing street; however, it will include a landscaped
berm and sidewalk between thE! streets in order to provide an adequate and safe separation between the
streets. The project will not result in inadequate parking or emergency access because the site is located
within sufficient response time for Fire and Police Departments and other emergency agencies. The proposed
project is a tentative map for 10 single-family lots which will be required to provide no less than two off-street
parking spaces per unit. Staff has consulted with public transportation agencies such as Riverside Transit
Agency and it was not determined that the project warrants a bus turn-out. The project will not conflict with any
adopted policies, plans or programs. The project is required to provide the necessary bicycle lanes as shown
on the City Master Trails plan.
d.
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
a licable Re ional Wa1er Quali 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
enYironmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or ex anded 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 ro'e(;t's solid waste dis osal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
re ulations related to solid waste?
x
b.
c.
x
x
e.
x
f.
x
g.
x
.
R:IT M\2003103-0321 TIM 31344lDraft Initia Study.doc
15
Comments:
16.a.-g. The proposed project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicabl~ National.
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
standards because the project includes conditions of approval that will verify the project is consistent with the
NPDES and RWQCB standards. The project will not require the construction of new water or Wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause bignificant
environmental effects because the current system was designed and constructed to handle the Imaximum
output of wastewater of the proposed project. The project will not 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 because the project has been conditioned to minimize off-site flo~ and the
project also includes on-site drainage facilities that will facilitate the necessary drainage from t~e project
site. The applicant is required to obtain approvals from the necessary water district verifying l/1at water
resources are available for the project. City staff has received a letter from the Rancho California Water District
verifying water is available, however the applicant is required to agree to certain agreements as required by the
Water District. City staff has also received a letter from County of Riverside Department of Environmental
Health indicating that the applicant is required to be connected to the sewers of the necessary di~trict. The
applicant is required to construct any necessary sewer system of adequate size and specification as required
by the necessary agency. The project is required to verify that the solid waste agency is able to be s~rved by a
landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs: Also, the
project is required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste
standards. I
I
I
I
I
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. Would the project:
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California histo or rehisto ?
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
ro.ects, and the effects of robable future ro.ects?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directl or indirectl ?
Comments:
17.a. The project will not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a.
plant or animal community. reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or 6nimal, or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory because the p~oject site
does not contain any sensitive, threatened or endangers species or wetlands and the applicant has Isubmitted
R:\T M\2003103-0321 TIM 31344\Draft Initial Study.doc I
16
I
i
a.
b.
c.
.lssuesandSúPPQrting II1forrr8tionSotjrces
x
x
a phase I archaeological resource study, which determined that there should not be any cultural resources on
the project site. The project will include the removal of approximately 19 trees, however they include pepper,
11m and eucalyptus trees and are not considered to provide habitat to sensitive, threatened or endangered
cies. The site is zoned residential and is flat and includes minimal vegetation. Less than significant impacts
anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
b. The project should not have impacts that are individually limited, or cumulatively considerable that cannot be
mitigated accordingly. The appliGant has submitted the necessary studies and documents, which have been
reviewed by staff and/or qualified professionals and it has been determined that any potential impacts can be
adequately mitigated. Staff has included the appropriate mitigation measures as conditions of approval to
ensure any potentially significant impacts are reduced to not significant.
c. The project will not have any environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings directly or indirectly that >:annot be mitigated adequately. Staff has identified the potentially significant
impacts to humans as a result of the project and the applicant has submitted the appropriate studies which
have either confirmed that there should not be any effects or have provided specific mitigation measures that
will reduce the effects to less than significant impacts. Mitigation Measures as well as Conditions of Approval
have been applied to ensure all potentially significant impacts have been reduced to less than significant
impacts to humans and the envimnment directly and indirectly
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering program EIR,
or other CECA 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.
c.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
.
Earlier anal ses used. denti earlier anal ses and state where the are available for review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis.
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 the address site-s ecific conditions for the ro'ect.
SOURCES
City of Temecula General~ Plan, November 9, 1993.
City of Temecula General! Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, July 2, 1993
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, www.aamd.aov.
Tentative Tract Map 31344 Preliminary Noise Study (Revised), Urban Crossroads, January 14,2004
(Revised).
Tentative Tract Map 31344 Air Quality Impact Analysis (Revised), Urban Crossroads, January 30, 2004
(Revised).
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Tentative Tract No. 31344 located on the northeast side of
Ynez Road and southeast of Rancho Vista Road, City of Temecula Riverside County, California,
Lawson & Associates Geotechnical Consulting, Inc. January 13, 2004.
A phase I Cultural Resource Assessment of Tentative Tract Map 31344, Jean A. Keller, Ph.D., October
2003.
8. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation by Microtrans, 7th Edition, 2003.
R:IT M\2003\O3-o321 TIM 31344\O'aft Initial Study.doc
17
.
ATTACHMENT NO.5
.
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
.
R,IT M\2003103-03211TM 31344\ST AFF REPORT-1.doc
11
~ ~,::~~",,'?;c'~'!É= 1>",;,
~ .".~==~~~ ~'H "'-- -,
-~#'"""'~
.
.
.
Project Description:
Location:
Applicant:
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application PA03-0321 , TM 31344
Southeast corner of Ynez Rd and Rancho Vista Road (APN: 944-
092-024)
Marchand Way Development, Inc.
31630 Railroad Canyon Rd., Ste. 9
Canyon Lake, CA 92587
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
Air Quality
A temporary impact of offensive odors and additional dust due to
the operation of heavy equipment during construction phases of
the project.
The project is required to provide a water truck to continuously
"water down" the graded areas to reduce the amount of dust from
excavation. During grading activities, site shall be watered down
no less than three times per day in order to comply with AQMD
Rule 403-Fugitive Dust. In addition, all heavy equipment must be
regularly maintained to reduce emissions.
Planning staff will verify compliance with the above mitigation
measure as part of on-going field verification and inspections.
On-going during all grading activities
Building Department
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring:
Party:
Air Quality
Contribute to the degradation of air quality throughout the South
Coast Air Basin
No wood burning stoves or wood burning fire places shall be
permitted.
Verify through building permits that no wood burning stoves or
wood burning fireplaces will be approved. Gas burning fireplaces
and stoves will be permitted
Prior to issuance of building permit
Planning Department and Building Department
R:IT M\2oo3103.0321 TIM 31344I\i1itigation Monitoring Program.doc
1
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
.
Cultural Resources I
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of rl n
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
In the event any historical resources are discovered durirg
grading operations, all construction activity shall cease. The
Planning Department, Building Department and Pechanga Bahd
of Luiseno Indians, shall be notified in the event any resources dre
discovered. . I
I
The Planning Department and Building Department shall be
notified in the event any resources are discovered. 6' A
representative from Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians shall. e
notified to determine the significance of the discovery i
1
On-going during all earthmoving phases of the project.
Planning Department and Building Department
General Impact:
Mitigation Measures:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
Cultural Resources
.
Cause a substantive adverse change in the significance Of a
paleontological resources.
In the event any paleontological resources are discovered durirg
grading operations, all construction activity shall cease. T~e
Planning Department, Building Department, shall be notified in the
event any resources are discovered l'
The Planning Department and Building Department, shall Ie
notified in the event any resources are discovered.
Ongoing during all earth moving phases of the project.
Planning Department and Building Department
.
R:\T M\2003\03-0321 TIM 31344\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc
2
.
.
.
Geology and Soils
Project is located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
may become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The
project is potentially subject to strong seismic ground shaking.
General Impact:
The applicant shall implement all recommendations included in
the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation dated January 13,
2004, including the following:
Mitigation Measures:
2.
3.
4.
1.
A 10-foot deep excavation and recompaction of fill across
the entire site shall be completed.
Fault Trench T-1 shall be identified during rough grading.
The complete removal of all loose fill soils is required in the
area of trench T-1.
The removal and recompaction of existing soils shall be
monitored by a representative of LGC or a qualified
professional as approved by the City of Temecula.
5.
Post-tension slabs shall be used for all building
construction on the project site.
6.
All earthwork and grading shall be performed in
accordance with all applicable requirements of the Grading
Excavation Code and the Grading Manual of the City of
Temecula, in addition to the provisions of the 1997 Uniform
Building Code, including Appendix 33.
7.
All grading activities shall be performed in accordance with
applicable provisions of the Standard Grading
Specifications (Appendix F) as indicated the Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation dated January 13, 2004 by
LGC, unless specifically revised in said study.
8.
All on-site debris shall be removed from the site prior to
grading activities.
The project geotechnical engineer or a qualified
professional shall be notified at appropriate times to
provide observation and testing services during clearing
operations and to verify compliance with the Mitigation
Measures pertaining to geotechnical standards.
9.
10.
Near surface, low density and potentially collapsible soil
materials such as, but not limited to loose manmade fill
and alluvium shall be removed to underlying competent
R:IT M\2003103-0321 TIM 31344~~itigation Monitoring Program.doc
3
"'""om" P"b, """",k, f= 000" .~ to """ll
compacted fill. .
Prior to placing structural fills, the exposed bottom surfaces
in each removal area should first be scarified to a dePth ! of
6-inches or more, watered or air dried as necessary to
achieve near optimum moisture conditions, and then
recompacted in-place to a minimum relative compactionl¡ of
90 percent.
Excavation activities, including removal and replacemen, of
soils adjacent to an existing structure or utility shall be
completed in one eight-hour working day or less. I
Excavation shall not be performed during periods of rainl or
threat of rain. I
In the event that excessive moisture contents or
excessively dry soils are encountered, LGC or a qualifIed
professional and the City of Temecula shall be notif ed
immediately. I
I
Vibratory type compaction equipment shall not be utilized.
I
During compaction activities, the applicant shall coordinkte
with LGC or a qualified professional. I
The project geotechnical consultant or a qualified
professional shall be present during all on-site grading
operations. I
I
All on-site drainage shall be directed away from structur' es
and towards the streets and/or storm drain facilities.
All retaining walls shall be constructed in accordance to the
recommended methods within the preliminary geotechnical
study prepared by LGC, dated January 13, 2004. I
If grading and/or construction activity does not commence
within 3 years of the preparation of the prelimin6ry
geotechnical study, dated January 13, 2004, the applic~nt
shall submit an updated report, subject to City of Temecula
review and the review of the Riverside County Geologist,
I
The applicant shall implement the mitigation measures as stated
in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation dated January ~ 3,
2004.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Ongoing during all earthmoving phases of the project or as
otherwise stated in the above Mitigation Measure.
R:\T M\2003\O3-o321 TIM 31344\Mitigation Monitoring Program.doc
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
Planning Department, Building Department and Public Works
Department.
General Impact:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Responsible Monitoring
Party:
Noise
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance.
1.
Construct a solid wall 5 feet in height along the western
and southern property lines of lot 10.
Construct a solid wall 5 feet in height along the northern
and eastern property lines of lot 1.
2.
3.
A "windows closed" condition requiring a means of
mechanical ventilation (e.g., air conditioning) shall be
provided for all lots.
4.
All lots shall be constructed utilizing weather-stripped solid
core exterior doors and exterior wall/roof assembles should
be free of cut outs and openings.
5.
Prior to issuance of a building permit a final noise study
shall be prepared for the project. This report shall finalize
the noise requirements based upon the precise grading
plans and actual building design specifications.
The applicant shall construct a noise barrier wall as stated within
the Noise Study prepared for Tentative Tract Map 31344, dated
January 14, 2004
Prior to issuance of building permits.
Planning and Building Department
R:IT M\2003103-0321 TTM 31344\Mitigation Mon~oring Program.doc
5
.
ITEM #6
.
.
.
.
.
Date of Meeting:
Prepared by:
File Number
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April7,2004
Stuart Fisk
Title:
Assistant Planner
Application Type:
Conditional Use Permit
PA02-0717
Project Description:
Recommendation:
(Check One)
CECA:
(Check One)
A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to construct and
IJperate a wireless telecommunications facility to include a 56-foot
11igh artificial palm tree with three (3) antennas housed within the
bulb portion of the tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets
within a 310 square foot block screen wall enclosure at 31575
I:nfield Lane, generally located on the south side of Enfield Lane,
approximately 3,200 feet east of Riverton Lane (APN 957-170-012).
1:8] Approve with Conditions
[J Deny
IJ Continue for Redesign
IJ Continue to:
IJ Recommend Approval with Conditions
IJ Recommend Denial
IJ Categorically Exempt
(Class)
IJ Negative Declaration
181 Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
IJEIR
RolC U P\2oo2102-0717 Cingula, Wireless Mono-PatmISTAFFREPORT.doc
t
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Applicant:
Cin ular Wireless
.
Completion Date:
Au ust 25, 2003
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
A ri17,2004
General Plan Designation:
Very Low Density Residential (VL)
Zoning Designation:
Very Low Density Residential (VL)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Residential
Parking Required/Provided N/A
BACKGROUND SUMMARY I
!8J 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. I
!8J 2. Staff has determined that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, City-
wide Design Guidelines and the Development Code. I
I
I
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan for the construction,
operation, and maintenance of an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility consisting of
three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of a proposed 56-foot high artificial palm tree
and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a block screen wall enclosure. I
I
Cingular Wireless has been experiencing dropped calls in the area of the proposed facility,
requiring the proposed facility to provide seamless coverage within the network. The properties
reviewed prior to the selection of the proposed project site were not selected due to the irreg~lar
topography and elevation changes of the search ring area and site location problems. fhe
proposed location is the only candidate site that meets technical, zoning and landowner
requirements. The following properties were not chosen because of the site location iss~es
listed below:
I
i
I
I
I
í
r
I
I
I
I
.
North:
South:
East:
West:
Residential
Residential
. Residential
Residential
Lot Area:
3.16 acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio
N/A
Landscape Area/Coverage
320 square feet
ANALYSIS
.
R,\C U 1'\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wore!ess Mono-PalmIST AFF REPORT-doc
2
. 1.
2.
3.
.
.
Riverton Park - The elevation of the property is not high enough to provide for proper
signal propagation of the Monopalm at a height of 55 feet or lower. Cingular's Radio
Frequency Enginlser determined that for proper signal penetration the minimum height
required at this 10Gation is 75 feet or greater.
San Dieao Aaueduct Vents - The venting stacks for the San Diego Aqueduct were
located outside oJ the search ring. The site would not meet the coverage objectives of
providing service 'In La Serena Way.
Residential Properties east of Butterfield Staae Road - The Site Acquisition Specialist
made numerous attempts to find a willing landowner and property for a location east of
Butterfield Stage I~oad. There were no interested property owners.
The project site selected by Cingular Wireless is located at 31575 Enfield Lane, generally
located on the south side, on Enfield Lane, approximately 3,200 feet east of Riverton Lane. The
project site consists of a lease area of 532 square feet within a 3.16 acre residential parcel that
contains an existing single-family home. Section 17.40.110 of the Telecommunications Facility
and Antenna Ordinance, requires that telecommunications facilities and antennas shall be
located no closer than 75 feet from any residential dwelling unit. The proposed facility is situated
approximately 85 feet frcm the nearest residential unit, which is the single-family home located
on the project site. The site would be leased from the property owner, Julie Foley. Access to
the site will be obtained fl"Om an existing 19 foot 3 inch wide dirt driveway off Enfield Lane.
The proposed monopalm will be designed to resemble existing and proposed living Mexican Fan
palms located on the project site. The exterior surface of the monopalm will be a brown rubber
cladding material that simulates a palm tree trunk. The mono palm will feature three antenna
panels placed inside the bulb portion of the monopalm so that the antennas will not be visible.
The fronds of the monopalm will be a medium-green colored plastic material shaped to simulate
the fronds of a live palm 'iree. A 310 square foot screened equipment area consisting of a 6 foot
split face block wall and Ii wooden access gate will screen the four proposed outdoor equipment
cabinets. Five-gallon Silverberry shrubs will surround the equipment screen wall to soften its
appearance and to minimize its visibility. The addition of two 35 foot high Mexican Fan palms at
the south side of the equipment screen wall is also proposed to help to tie the proposed
monopalm to the existin[ palm tress located on the project site. Condition no. 16 requires that
staff field inspect the final antenna facility design for compliance with the approved plans prior to
final Building Departmenl inspection.
The elevation of the project site is approximately 1,319 feet above sea level, which is below the
ridgeline elevation limit )f 1 ,350 for new telecommunication facilities as described in Section
17.40.110 of the Telecommunication Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The proposed height of
the monopalm is fifty-six feet as measured from the natural undisturbed ground surface below
the center of the base of the tower to the top of the simulated palm fronds. It has been
determined by the applic:ant's engineer that fifty-six feet is the minimum height to achieve the
technical coverage nece:¡sary to send and receive signals from and to mobile telephones. The
site was tested at 45 fee:! and failed the requirements of the Cingular Wireless Radio Frequency
Engineer. The height as proposed will permit the monopalm to achieve the objective of sending
and receiving cellular telephone transmissions to provide coverage along and between
Butterfield Stage Road Elnd Calle Medusa, toward the northern City boundary. Staff does not
believe that the proposed height will create any undesirable aesthetic impacts.
KIC U 1'12002102-07 t 7 Cingutar Wi.,tess Mono-PabnlST AFF REPORT.doc
3
Staff has determined that the proposed monopalm meets the intent of the general requireme ts
for visual compatibility as defined in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinanpe.
Staff can make the required findings necessary to approve a fifty-six foot high_unman1ed
wireless telecommunication facility at the proposed location.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
[8J 1. An initial study has been prepared and indicates that the project will have the following
potential significant environmental impacts unless mitigation measures are included as
conditions of approval. Based on the following mitigations, staff recommends adoption
of the mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. I
1
1. Directly or indirectly destroy any unique
palentological or archaeological
resources.
2. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries
CONCLUSION/R ECOMM ENDA TlON
Excavation shall be monitored during all .l
earthmoving associated with construction in areas
identified by a qualified paleontologic monitor as
likely to contain paleontologic resources per thel
recommendations contained in the Paleontologic
Resource Assessment for the project titled I
Paleontological Resource Assessment; Proposed
"Foley Land"; Cingular Wireless Facility Number
88216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula I
California by Michael Brandman Associates for
Environmental Assessment Specialists, Inc. dated
Mav 7,2003. !
I
I
Staff has determined that the project is consistent with all applicable City ordinances. standalds.
guidelines, and policies. The project is compatible with surrounding developments in terms of
design and quality, and staff is recommending approval. i
FINDINGS I
Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E) I
1. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development
code. I
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is
consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of It he
Development Code. The project as proposed meets the general requirements¡ as
outlined in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance. The antenna is
located outside of all yard and street setbacks. The monopalm as proposed has been
designed to blend in with the surrounding environment. The support facility has been
located and designed to minimize its visibility from the public right of way. I
R,\C U 1'\2002\02-0717 Cingular Wireless Mon<>-PatmlST AFF REPORT.doc
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.
The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development
of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
3.
As proposed the tolecommunication facility is designed as a monopalm with the antennas
mounted within th/~ bulb of the tree so that the antennas will not be visible. The proposed
monopalm is fifty-six feet high and has been designed to blend with the natural setting.
This design and height is consistent with the existing built and natural environment and
will not adversely affect the adjacent buildings.
The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
the yards, walls, fEmces, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other
development featmes prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning
Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
Planning staff has reviewed the requirements of the performance standards delineated in
the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sections of the
Development Coc'e. As a result, staff has determined that the proposed conditional use
meets the zoning requirements for projects located within the Vel)! Low Density
Residential zoning district.
4.
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community.
5.
Provisions are mélde in the General Plan, the Development Code, and Building and Fire
Safety Codes to (!nsure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. The
project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicable
requirements. In addition, wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas are not
known to emit hazardous substances or emit amounts of radiofrequency energy (RF)
above permitted l.evels as regulated by the Federal Communications Commission.
The decision to c-:mditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial
evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City
Council.
The project has _been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable
codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission.
Development Plan (17.0Ei.010F)
1.
The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city.
The proposed wireless telecommunications monopalm and equipment screen design is
in conformancE' with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and
Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance goals and policies, as well as with
all applicable requirements of state law.
R:IC U 1'\2002\02-0717 Cingutar Wifeless Mono-PatmlSTAFF REPORT.doc
5
2.
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public hea th,
safety, and general welfare.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the' ity
of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards outlined the Cit~ of
Temecula Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned 1nd
found to be physically suitable for the proposed fifty-six foot high-unmanned Wire/[SS
telecommunication facility designed as a" monopalm.
ATTACHMENTS
I
I
I
!
I
1
1.
Plan Reductions - Blue Page 7
2.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 8
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
3.
Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 9
R,\C U 1'\2002\02.0717 Cingular Wiretess Mono-PalmIST AFF REPORT.doc
6
.
.
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R:IC U 1'\2002102-0717 Cingutar Wirdess Mono-paJmlST AFF REPORT.doc
- 7
;:>,:.;,;~:: ~-C'--"__liIIn
-"""---:~Iíiì!!-O--
---y,:-- ~:,-:./i¡r-~~,1;Í'.ê;
S B AmDJ
Proposed Cell Sjte
Submitted to:
CITY OFTEMECUlA
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589
Submitted by:
SBA Network Services, Inc.
150 Paularino Avenue, Ste. A-166
Costa Mesa, CA. 92626
Project:
SB-216-O1
Foley land
31575 Enfield lane
Temecula, California 92592
APN: 957-170-012
Submitted:
February 25, 2004
Case Number:
,PA02-O717 (Conditional Use Permit)
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. VICINITY MAP
2. PROJECT PROPOSAL
3. RADIO FREQUENCY PROPAGATION MAPS
4. RADIO FREQUENCY STUDY
5. PHOTO SIMULATIONS
6. PROJECT PLANS
c
D
E
5
6
7
,..
2
0 31575 Enfield Ln: Temecula. CA 1'2591,95901
C D
3898
4
5
E
F
G
H
B
c
D
H
A
900
B
c
1
2.
3
4
c
D
E
F
G
H
0 31575 Enfield Ln: Temecula, CA 92591,95901
.
.
.
SBAIDDJ
Proposal for a Cingular Wireless Telecommunications Facility
58-216-01: 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula, California 92592
Zone: VO,-¡ Low Dcm:ity nosident/a! (VI::)- u. - -.
APN: 957-170-012
-~ a -.- ------ ----
Project Description
Cingular Wireless i:; proposing to construct, operate. and maintain a wireless
telecommunications f3cility at the rear of 31575 Enfield Lane. The un-staffed facility will
consist of three (3) antennas housed within the bulb portion of the proposed 55-foot
artificial palm tree. Two Jive palms will be planted, in addition there are 12 palms
existing. The propos,ed and existing palms will create a grove effect. The proposed
equipment shelter will be located adjacent to the proposed monopalm. and will be set
into the hillside to re,duce the profile. The shelter will mimic the style of the existing
house. Cingular Wireless is experiencing dropped calls in the area of the proposed
facility, requiring this facility to provide seamless coverage within the network.
Zoning Consistency & Justification
The properties re,viewed prior to the selection of Foley Land were not selected due
to the irregular topography and elevation changes of the search ring area and site
location problem!;. (Please refer to attached Search Ring Map) The proposed location is the
only candidate that meets the technical, zoning and landowner requirements.
Furthermore the proposed location is approximately a half-mile outside of the area
originally reques'ted by the Radio Frequency Engineer. The following properties
were not chosen because of the site location issues listed below:
1. Riverton Park- The elevation of the property is not high enough to provide for
proper signal propagation of the Monopalm at a height of 55 feet or lower.
Cingular's Radio Frequency Engineer determined that for proper signal
penetration the minimum height required at this location is 75 feet or greater.
2. San Dieqç. Aaueduct Vents- The venting stacks for the San Diego Aqueduct
were located outside of the search ring. The site would not meet the
coverage objectives of providing service on La Serena Way,
3. Residential Properties east of ButterField Staqe Road- The Site Acquisition
Specialist made numerous attempts to find a willing landowner and property
for a location east of ButterField Stage Road. There were no interested
property owners.
2
S BAlm}]
.
Justification for the Proposed Facility at Enfield Lane
The site is suitable and adequate for the proposed use. The antennas will be
housed within the bulb portion of the trunk of the artificial palm, which completely
mitigates any visual impacts to the surrounding residences. In addition, the height of
the proposed facility is comparable with the height of live palms in the area.
The proposed facility will have no impact on traffic circulation or the street system.
The proposed telecommunications facility will not result in conditions or
circumstances contrary to the public health, safety, and the general welfare. The
facility will operate in full compliance with the regulations and licensing requirements
of the FCC, FAA, and CPUC as governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The proposed height is the minimum required for the facility to propagate the signal
properly. The site was tested at 45 feet and failed the requirements needed by the
Radio Frequency Engineer. (Please refer to drive test results).
Two facilities at a lower height are not feasible due to the hilly topography of the
area and adjacent operational facilities. Proximity to other Cingular facilities can
cause radio interference. (Please refer to Radio Frequency Propagation Map)
Per the recommendation of the DRC staff, the site has been relocated to the rear of
the property. The proposed facility is now more than 75 feet away from any
residential structure.
.
The adjacent nei9hbor has provided a letter stating they are not opposed to the
proposed monopalm. (please refer to attached letter)
The operating characteristics of the proposed telecommunications facility will create
no impact on circulation systems; generate no noise, odor or smoke. Furthermore,
the facility will not create any adverse impacts that are detrimental or incompatible
with other permitted uses in the vicinity.
.
The equipment associated with the facility operates virtually noise-free, does not
emit fumes, smoke, dust, or odors. The proposed facility will be in operation 24
hours per day; 7 days a week and will only require routine maintenance only every 4
to 6 weeks.
Unlike other land uses, which can be spatially determined through the General Plan
the location of wireless telecommunication facilities is based on technical
requirements which include service area, geographical elevations, alignment with
surrounding sites and customer demand components. Placement within the urban
geography is dependent on these requirements. Consequently, wireless
telecommunication facilities have been located adjacent to and within all major land
use categories including residential, commercial, industrial, open space, etc. proving
to be compatible in all locations.
.
3
.
.
.
S ß.AÐmJ
Wireless telecommunication networks enhance the general welfare of
communities by providing a resilient communications system in the event of
emergencies (earthquakes, fires, traffic accidents, etc.) whereas landline
communications systems are often disrupted during and after a major incident. In
addition, wirel,ess telecommunication networks add an additional layer of
communications infrastructure with little to no construction disruption to the
community.
Network Design
The proposed communications facility will transmit at a frequency range of between
1850 MHz and 1990 MHz. A typical PCS facility operates at 200 watts. Depending on
the unique characteristics of the site, the actual power requirements may vary. When
operational, the radio signals from the site will consist of non-ionizing waves generated
at less than 1 uW/cm:~, which is significantly lower than the maximum allowable public
exposure of 1,000 microwatts as set by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE).
The distance between antenna sites will normally range from Y:. mile to 9 miles,
depending on the population density, consumer usage, existing vertical elements, and
the geographical terrain. In order to have a clear line-of-site; antennas must be mounted
high enough to over<:ome challenges posed by local topography and development.
Telephone calls can originate or be received from a wireless facility because antennas
share a fixed number of frequencies across the network grid. As the caller is traveling
through the network the call is continuously being handed-off between wireless facilities
to provide an uninterrupted telephone conversation. The following are some of the basic
types of cell sites:
Coverage sites serve to expand coverage in large areas or in areas with difficult terrain
and to enhance coverage for portable systems. Coverage sites allow users to make and
maintain calls as they travel between cells.
Capacity sites serve to increase the capacity when surrounding sites have reached
their practical channel limits. As the years pass, the number or subscribers increases
exponentially creating a strain on the existing network. In order to alleviate this strain,
capacity sites are implemented into the systems network to accommodate the increase
in customer demand.
4
~
i
f
.
""~'"
:' \,
.
.
[
f
~
;:)
'~, ).
\"
/ ,~,'
v;
I'
,J\
-!\
.
.
Cingular Wireless. Proposed Base Station (Site No. SB-216-01)
31575 Enfield Lane. Temecula, California
Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers
The fmn of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of I inguiar
Wireless, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SB- 16-01)
proposed to be located at 31575 Enfield Lane in Temecula, California, for compliance with app~opriate
guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF') electromagnetic fields. I
Prevailing Exposure Standards II
The u.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions
for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1~97, the
1
FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in ¡Report
No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic ~ields,"
published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protecti,on and
Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conllitions,
with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electri~al and
1
Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human
I
Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical
exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limi~ apply
for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all p~rsons,
I
regardless of age, gender, size, or health. i
~ I
The most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency enetgy for
several personal wireless services are as follows: 'I
Personal Wireless Service AOOIOX. Frequency Occupational Limit Public Limit
Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz 5.00 mW/crn2 1.00 mW/cm~
Cellular Telephone 870 2.90 0.58 ì
Specialized Mobile Radio 855 2.85 0.57 I
[most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1.00 0.20 I
General Facility Requirements I
Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or
"cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antenn~s that
send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber unit~. The
transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cableJ about
I inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for 1ireless
services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed
at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy towJrd the
I
I
CG02I6579
Pagb 1 00
I
HAMMETI & EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRAI<CISCQ
.
.
.
CingularWireless. Proposed Base Station (Site No. SB-216-01)
~;1575 Enfield Lane. Temecula, California
. horizon, with very little em:rgy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of
such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the
maximum permissible expo:mre limits without being physically very near the antennas.
Computer Modeling Method
The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology
Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluati:llg Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to
Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation
methodologies, reflecting th,~ facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at
locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source
decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature
of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests.
Site and Facility Description
.
Based upon information provided by Cingular, including drawings by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc.,
dated August 20, 2003, it is proposed to mount three EMS Model DR8517-02DPL2Q directional
panel antennas on a new 56-foot steel pole, configured to resemble a palm tree, to be located at 31575
Enfield Lane in Temecula. The antennas would be mounted at an effective height of about 48 feet
above ground and would be oriented at 120° spacing, to provide service in all directions. The maximum
effective radiated power in any direction would be 3,200 watts, representing sixteen channels operating
simultaneously at 200 wa1ts each. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base
stations installed nearby.
Study Results
The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground level due to the Cingular operation is calculated to
be 0.0036 mW/cm2, which is 0.36% of the applicable public limit. The maximum calculated level at the
second floor elevation of the nearby home is 1.5% of the public exposure limit. It should be noted that
these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate actual
power density levels.
No Recommended Mitigation Measures
.
Since they are to be mounted on a tall pole, the Cingular antennas are not accessible to the general
public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure
guidelines. It is presumed that Cingular will, as an FCC licensee, take adequate steps to ensure that its
employees or contractors comply with FCC occupational exposure guidelines whenever work is
required near the antennas 1hemselves.
HAMMETf & EDISON, INc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRA~CISCO
CGO216579
Page 2 00
CingularWireless. Proposed Base Station (Site No. SB-216-01)
31575 Enfield Lane. Temecula, California
Conclusion
I
Based on the infonnation and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that tile base
station proposed by Cingular Wireless at 31575 Enfield Lane in Temecula, California, will comply with
the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, {ill not
for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in phblicly
accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited dktion.
This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other opbrating
base stations. I
i
i
I
I
The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding Ca¡ïfornia
Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2005. This work has been ¡carried
¡
out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except,
where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct. I
Authorship
December 23, 2003
HAMMETI & EDISON. INc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
Coq216579
pale 3 of3
.
.
.
.
.
.
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
to adopt a nationwide hwnan exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have
a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological
Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the
Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are
nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard
C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic
Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are
intended to provide a pmdent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or
health.
As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure
conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more res1rictive:
Frequency
Applicable
Range
(MHz)
0.3 - \.34
\.34 - 3.0
3.0- 30
30- 300
300- 1,500
1,500 - 100,000
Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequencv of emission in MHz)
Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field
Field Strength Field Strength Power Density
CY/m) (AIm) (mW/cm')
614 614 \.63 1.63 100 100
614 823.8/[ \.63 2.19/[ 100 180//
1842/f 823.8/[ 4.89/f 2.19/[ 900/1" 180//
6\.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 \.0 0.2
3.54Vr 1.59'iÏ Vr/IO6 fr/238 17300 [/1500
137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0
~
~ .qN§
6~~
c..°g
1000
100
----,
./ Occupational Exposure
/' PCS
Cell
10
I
0.1
Public Ex osure
0.1
10 100 103
Frequency (MHz)
105
104
Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or
thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher
levels also are allowed feor exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not
exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation
formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for
projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that
calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any
number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven
terrain, ifrequired to obtaiù more accurate projections.
HAMMEIT & EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
FCC Guidelines
Figure I
RFRCALC TM Calculation Methodology
Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines
The u.s. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to .
adopt a nationwide hwnan exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulativelj, have a
significant impact on the environment. The maximum pennissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC
(see Figure I) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a ¡prudent
margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are alldwed for
short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty min~tes, for
occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits. I
Near Field. I
Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip
(omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zorle is the
distance from an antenna before which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterhs have
fonned; the near field is assumed to be in effect for increasing D until three conditions have beerl met:
2 I
I) D>~ 2) D>5h 3) D> 1.6^- I
I
where h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and I
^- = wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters. '
i
The FCC Office of Engineering and Tecbnology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this fonhula for
calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source: I
S 180 0.1 x Poet W 2
power density = BBW x 1t X D x h' in m /ern,
.
HAMMETI & EDISON, INc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANOSCQ
1
I
I
1
The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This f°rn1ula has
been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupationallfmits.
. I
~~~ ¡
OET-65 gives this fonnula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF sourfe:
d . S 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP . mW; 2 I'
power enslty = 4 x 1t X l)2 , III ern , ,
where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts, I
RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and I
D = distance fiom the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters. I
The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assl.1ming a
reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole
relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired ~its of
power density. This fonnula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location
on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual
radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicihity, to
~=~~~ i.
I
Met~odology
rigure 2
I
where 9¡¡w = half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and
Poet = net power input to the antenna, in watts.
CingularWireless. Proposed Base Station (Site No. SB-216-01)
31575 Enfield Lane. Temecula, California
.
Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers
The fum of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Cingu1ar
Wireless, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SB-216-01)
proposed to be located at 31575 Enfield Lane in Temecula, California, for compliance with appropriate
guidelines limiting human exposure to radio ffequency ("RF') electromagnetic fields.
.
Prevailing Exposure Standards
The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal CommunicatiOPS Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions
for possible significant impact on the environment In Docket 93-62, effective October 15,1997, the
FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report
No. 86, "Biological Effec;ts and Exposure Criteria for Radioffequency Electromagnetic Fields,"
published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions,
with the latter limits genenùly five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human
Exposure to Radio Frequecacy Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical
exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure 1. These limits apply
for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons,
regardless of age, gender, size, or health.
The most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to radio ffequency energy for
several personal wireless s¡:rvices are as follows:
Personal Wireless SeIVÌce
Personal Communication ("PCS")
Cellular Telephone
Specialized Mobile R2.dio
[most restrictive fiequency range]
Am>TOX. Frequency
1,950 MHz
870
855
30-300
Occupational Limit
5.00 mW/cm2
2.90
2.85
1.00
Public Limj¡
1.00 mW/cm2
0.58
0.57
0.20
General Facility Requirements
Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or
"cabinets") that are conne,;ted to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that
send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The
transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about
I inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the ffequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless
services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed
at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the
.
HAMMETI & EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANOSCO
CGO216579
Page I of3
Cingular Wireless. Proposed Base Station (Site No. SB-216-01)
31575 Enfield Lane. Temecula, California
horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low Pfwer of .
such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approrCh the
maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas.
Computer Modeling Method
The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Tecjm°logy
Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human ExPofure to
Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calflliation
methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully fored at
locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energy¡ source
decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature
of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests. I
Site and Facility Description I
Based upon information provided by Cingular, including drawings by Jeffrey Rome & Associates, Inc.,
dated August 20, 2003, it is proposed to mount three EMS Model DR8517-02DPL2Q dirdctional
I
panel antennas on a new 56-foot steel pole, configured to resemble a palm tree, to be located atl3l575
Enfield Lane in Temecula. The antennas would be mounted at an effective height of about ~8 feet.
above ground and would be oriented at 120° spacing, to provide service in all directions. The máxïmum
effective radiated power in any direction would be 3,200 watts, representing sixteen channels o~erating
simultaneously at 200 watts each. There are reported no other wireless telecommunications base
stations installed nearby.
Study Results
. The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground level due to the Cingular operation is ca1culnted to
I
be 0.0036 mW/cm2, which is 0.36% of the applicable public limit. The maximum calculated level at the
second floor elevation of the nearby home is 1.5% of the public exposure limit. It should be notbd that
these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected to overstate: actual
power density levels.
No Recommended Mitigation Measures
Since they are to be mounted on a tall pole, the Cingular antennas are not accessible to the kenera1
I
public, and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure
1
guidelines. It is presumed that Cingular will, as an FCC licensee, take adequate steps to ensure 'fat its
employees or contractors comply with FCC occupational exposure guidelines whenever work is
required near the antennas themselves. I
HAMMETT & EDISON, INc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS CGO2 I 6579
SAN FRANCISCO pagt 2 of3
I
I
.
.
.
.
CingularWireless. Proposed Base Station (Site No. SB-216-01)
31575 Enfield Lane. Temecula, California
Conclusion
Based on the infonnation and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base
station proposed by Cingular Wireless at 31575 Enfield Lane in Temecula, California, will comply with
the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, will not
for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly
accessible areas is much l,~ss than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration.
This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating
base stations.
Authorship
The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California
Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2005. This work has been carried
out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except,
where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct.
December 23, 2003
HAMME1T & EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
CGO216579
Page 3 of3
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ('FCC") .
to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulative y, have
a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Bl~logiCaI
Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 198 by the
Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, w ich are
nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers S andard
C95.l-l999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electr°IT1agnetic
Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources Fd are
intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, rize, or
health. I
As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public e,tposure
conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive: I
Freauency Electromagnetic Fields (f is freauencv of emission in MHz)
Applicable Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field I
Range Field Strength Field Strength Power Density
(MHz) (y/m) (AIm) (mW/cm2) I
0.3 - 1.34 614 614 1.63 ].63 100 ]00
1.34- 3.0 614 823.811 1.63 2.]911 100 ]801/
3.0- 30 1842/f 823.811 4.89/f 2.]911 900/r' ]801/ I
30- 300 61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2 I
300- 1.500 3.54Vr ].59'Jj Vr/1O6 ..Jjl238 fl300 f/]500
1,500 - 100,000 137 6].4 0.364 0.]63 5.0 ].0
.
1000 / Occupational Exposure
100 pcs
ii.in; 10 ' Cell
,
~5~ , FM
"-Os ~ ----,
0.1 /'-
Public Ex osure
I
0.1 I 10 100 103 104 105 I
Frequency (MHz) i
Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or
thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and Ihigher
levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels ~do not
exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calc~lation
formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 19~7) for
projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas intq a proprietary program that
calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density frdm any
number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and Jneven
terrain,ifrequired to obtain more accurate projections. II
HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS FCC Guidelines
SAN FRANasco fl"ure I
' '0
1
1
.
.
.
.
RFRCALC 1M Calculation Methodology
Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines
The U.S. Congress requir.:d (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to
adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a
significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC
(see Figure 1) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent
margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for
short periods of time, s'ach that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for
occupational or public set1:ings, respectively, do not exceed the limits.
Near Field.
Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip
(omnidirectional) antenna¡:, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is the
distance ITom an antenna before which the manufacturer's published, far field antenna patterns have
formed; the near field is assumed to be in effect for increasing D until three conditions have been met:
2h2
I) D>-X-
2) D> 5h
3) D > 1.6)",
where h = apertw'e height of the antenna, in meters, and
)." = wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters.
The FCC Office of Engim:ering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for
calculating power density :in the near field zone about an individual RF source:
S 180 O.lxPnet W 2
power den:¡ity = 'BBW x n x D x h' in m /em,
where !Jaw = half-pc,wer beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and
Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts.
The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has
been built into a proprietaJy program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits.
Far Field.
OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source:
d I"~ S - 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP . mW~ 2
power en..¡ty - 4 x n x D2 ' m em ,
where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts,
RFF = relativ!: field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and
D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters,
The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a
reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole
relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of
power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location
on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual
radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to
obtain more accurate projections.
HAMMETT & EDISON, INc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
Methodology
Figure 2
CI
Z
«
.J
>-
W
oJ
0
I.&.
0
I
\0
N
I
m
UJ
L~
IUS
:J~
0)
C
U
~
N
~
oil
N
~
<{
U
.
"
~
~
~
"
Z
j
~
~
W
oil
r-
oll
;:;
z
a
~
u
D
oJ
.
,
,
¡
I
,
,
¡
¡
¡
1
,
!
!
,
~
.
N
~
~
N
~
~
U
.
~
~
I
"
~
~ .
.
oJ
~
;;:
Z
W
~
~
~
~
.
0
z
<t
.J
>-
W
oJ
0
lL.
0
I
\D
N
,
m
OJ
.
L~
ro~
:J~
0)
C
U
~
z
0
~
0
0
.J
~~!!
~~~¡
!
,
¡
,
,
,
.
,
I
I
,
¡
.
¡
¡
,
¡
!
~
!
c
z
(
oJ
>-
W
..J
0
4.
0
I
\0
N
I
m
OJ
L.
ro;
:J~
0)
C
U
~
"
~
III
"
~
-<
u
.
~
~
"
~
"
z
. '
oJ'
Q
~
~
W
III
r-
III
;;
Z
Q
~
Š
JI.;¡¡
~I~I
,
,
I
,
<
,
,
,
!
I
<
¡
i
,
,
¡
¡
!
~
¡
¡
.
N
"
II!
N
"
«
u
<
~
U
"
I
~
~
j i
~
~
W
II!
~
II!
~
.
Q
Z
«
-I
>-
W
...J
0
II.
....
0
I
\0
N
I
ID
U)
.
L.
CU~
:J~
0)
C
U
~
¡
"
"
.J
.gi
Giìl¡
,
!
,
¡
,
.
,
¡
!
,
¡
,
¡
¡
.
¡
!
!
~
!
. ¡i'!¡j~' ",zo VlH'OJnY> 'JHIMI
I: I¡!i a ¡ 001 J!lns ""'0 HOSlJ""" mr
~! i';: .. .
- 'I".f <:. iI . ~ ¡ SS313~IM
U¡i¡.8~~. Ô
~:;I:il älu :<1<1 <1 JB n Up ~
Len
rd~
_w
:J~
.0)
C
--
0
.~
I I !
I I! I I I J I
III I ~!IIII
¡Ill!!! I !,I I f Ii ¡
II I I III , ¡
i ~~~4{).O~ ¡ i ¡
..- 0
OLZ
,-1«
W«-1
(L
N°>-
,Zw
(00-1
(J)LE:
, , .
Iii!' ,;
11' if
,Ix I!
!,' ,
xd
i':
~ il~
h',
~ ,1'1
gil;!
,~"~~,."""_.,,..:,,,
."."'I"tl -. ".~, 1"'1 -, N å
.,-I~"So.:.::..~ m';¡'l5.,'-S...==! "i
-..-... ~ ~~ .,...
, 0 3 I
V8 ..-......... ~ 3 ~g ~ I-
~"""---' r !~ ~ ~ó ¡:¡
"V' c::::JI 7 i~ ,g ~¡¡ ;¡
.~.~ ¡ e;¡~ 1~
;iiiiiiiíi,¡! ø
:11111111.î~¡!¡
Q ssg ~ ¡¡ i 'I; ~ III 101
q~~ ~H ~'~I'I.
~~~¡¡¡~~~! ¡¡~¡slill
II
i'l,
,1:1
I.Si
II',
IS!,
I'll
~ III
~ 1'1'
~ ,1,1
¡
.¡ ¡ ~~ ¡
! BI!!Ii¡i an
¡:¡ ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡I> ¡z j
~ ~ ~
, . .
. . .
( ( (
. ! ¡
I Ii I'
II
n
u
II
..
.. ' III
! .~ ~ 1.1 'I!'
... !I! Ji: ! I,' JH ~!i'
! '¡I'h' ~ f!~'I;' t,Z!
~ I !m~ a Ihm~ ~~f¡
I ¡!.~
~ I , "i '¡i!
~ !' j B ii ¡In
~ , '~I ~¡)!~. ~
" ì~ .10j~".Q
t,,'g~!¡;~'~'oJ,~,t;
-_111"0"'09-.-
~~Mh2'~d¡îi:;§a ~x .~II
1
I
.. :!i I! t; ,
rn ! -. - .
g , i!l! g ! !i~1~ ~ ¡iii
¡ ¡!Jnl i s¡i,HI ~ ihî~
d 1fHh!! ~ md!1 ~ Sid!
. i
~ * ~ ;
~ ¡g .¡. ¡ I*~ '.1 ',¡
~ æ i I¡å .. I ~!!q , 1m
" ~~ 1'<;; t; ¡.eul, ,. ."j
5~~,;>""~ "g ."wI'>""
~ a~:~¡li! ~ null! ~ Hil,~1
1
,----.-.
¡¡
~ .
i
II
r
::':"::"""::""":_-='.'.'----====I-~
......._.,.",..".~""
.
Iii::!! - .
I íei'" ~ . I
~!i¡!¡!g~::!i
il'I'¡§ ~ ~ d ä
!5.d.~~~ .<J <J
.., "'n;:',~f,ci'~~~~~g,~'~~~~
SS313~IM
JBlnBup ~
...,".;:~!."?î .,,¡¡:<,:::I:::I,,;:;; ~ ¡¡
.. ~-~:;::...-' .
'"I "'i 's ~J.'I'N _"7.""'::: ~ ~.
...-.-"'.. ¡ '3 ~ai
V'"èJ r 1*: ~~~ ~
~~~ 19-. ~
,~ ¡'i E ~~ ¡ ~
0
I
1«
!
~~
ZEe n
.
(
'I ,I
h! II!
~:i 'I
I~ II~
.
z
::s
a.
w
f--
Vi
..",.. . ..
='.... huh.. .. - ..
. ... . ..
- - ---= = = -,..'- _.. ..
- --- -
"ii;1 .
LillI
UII!~I ." i "II
U ill' 8; íi ~ ,
11.i1!.!1i~ ,
"foil ~ U ~ ¡
I
'r" .~ ~, . """. ."'~ ,"
".Z. YIH'O'nvo ']HIMI'
", ],uns ']^". HOS1JNO'" !it..
m~"'1"3 -,
.,.,"-="'="::""7.
""-".'J -. £ j
~>:::SÍ'5.¿;: 6
~,.._~
... -.... - ;¡;
"<7"è:I r !~ !~1
.m .~
<1
T
I
I
i
I
1
~
.Y. '01:>"
---------------"" .-~
~-_.
~~\
\\'
\')
~r~
!II !
O~t I
II! ;
!¡! i
II! I
,~ !
I ¡I'
,¡II !n
;!I s~ln~
I! h I! IU!
z
::5
a.
w
f--
Vi
:5
~
-----------=====F~"..
"... .~ .'. - ..M. "",. ""
.
,-,¡;; ,
~'!I¡¡! ,
! II .:: !l I
. !¡'¡'I ~ ~ ill ~ ~
S "1\ ~ .. ~
;11.- 60" ,
~¡'I"! ." d '
.",¡;.~g;: ,,1
m" YlN.OJnVO "NWI'
001 '!inS ',^,"o NomHOI" mt
""-"'I"ß -.
.,...::e~-::::
""-'I.'!'" ¡;j
_'I:I.:;'§ ~
..-.-..... 'i 3
V'~r I~ri
,~ Kg
.~ .....
;~ ~ .....
~ ~~ ~ I
S 3j U 1«
I~ ~~ ¡ i
SS313~IM
lBln6up ~
<J
.
~ i
~ .
~ I
L
I
I
, I I
I : i
I I I
zEB
g
)
i
\
.'-,00
\
\
<¡,~ rd'
, ",' / -'
',<f! /
/ /
") /.. Ii
~ / /
..~ :
I
i
I
.
!i
(I
t~
01
I.
II
II
~
I
!
1
z
:5
"-
"
z
0
«
'"
"
----.: ----.: =---.: ---- --
.....- -- .. '.. ....---
----.:_::..;c:;===--
~!¡!ì¡i
ii¡il!!
:11!',i¡
U:I,ii
~
~
n... VI.,omY> """'"
001 ]1In. ',.". "om",," .m
SS313~IM
JB n6up ~
~
i I
i
I I
i
!
I
~
[t4þ,
I.
I l~
I !
.1
!i !
'~".
ô I
~ I
¡;¡ '.
¡;j II
J:
f-
a::
0
z
. . - - . _.- _. " -. - . . -
-----------
'... ~ ~. woo,. =~ om
^il
~II
'!',
L!a
~~I' I
t¡. I
¡;¡ I J
I
__!Lc-.;;. ¡
z
0
...J
W
J:
f-
:::J
----- -"""1 s¡
I
- - - = ¡= -" -
.
"§¡;¡ ,
L \¡'I
II I;:' s . i
'I.,;~.,~,!I
~! :Iä, g ¡¡ íi
il.l';1 . ~ d I
~~.d .gi!~ ¡
<J
SS313H1M
JB nBup ~
...~'Š!!!!.-=ii. ~,,¡¡;¡;::f§!=: !
~--"":",,,:::: ~
...-.....- Ÿ 3
'Q"'~ r '~Ii
,~ .~
~
d C"')
Q a~ I
3!g ~ ,<{
Ih~ I~ i
.Ii ðc~:
¡I~ ~:- -
"'~
.~
~I'
iXll ~'
" "".}""""",!
-" (-£,;:7<':;
("'~:""">""""fI,*""
~
~
l
I
"". VlH,O'"., '3HIMI
001 3llnS '3"'0 HO513HOI" ""
.
lli
~II
!!.¡~
, 3'
P'~
gí.
~Ii
i f
J I
II :
I !
ô; I
¡::: s'
~ '
-'
W
f-
V>
is
.
"." ~ ~, . "".,. ."'~ ,~
ß~
~r
~ j
~ ~
?~r~'" -~_:
-""------""M
z
a
~
-'
W
f-
V>
w
,.
---- -_.,- ---
-.- _.- _.-
..==------
- - --
-----
- - '-
<T'
!.
GENERAL NOTES
. "'".."""""""'~""""'~"""'_....""
"""......."""""""'"....
I:
I:
I:
[i
I:
[:
I:
1
¡:
I:
Ii
II
[I
[!
~~ =T<- ~~1L ~i'.æ;;'
~-"""""'M'~~~""""""""""
"'.....
PLANTING NOTES
. ""'""'" -- ... -"'<' ...., .""'"
'""'-........_""......,.,"""""-~~'"'
""""'" ~_.... """"""'" ",."""
"""""""""...=-
. "'-~""-.,..,.."...."""'"',,..
......""'..........""""-~,.,..,,"""""'" ""
........
.-""'""'""""'.-...""""
'"""""""""',.._~.."""...'"'--
==r..~"J",:\\:::'~~~'"
""NTENANCE NOTES
. """"-"""n'""""..,-~"""""
=.!.~.E æJ~ =~ ",,::, '"
=r~"""""'-"""~""""
":,";.:,,,,"'i:g',l',,';',t,' ,.. """"" ""'" ,...
SOiL AMEND"ENT SCHEDULE
GENERAL SITE PREPARATION
",,_...,.~,.~..._,"",
GENERAL PALM eACKFILL (PER CUSIC YARD)
......"""~...,," "'""'" "'",
"""".~,--,,~~,...
...." "'" .~ , """" ~o-..... ,..
:a,:;;,.i~~'f"" " -,~ .. =,
~.1",g,",~~""~' """'-1 M
GENERAL SHRUS SAC'FlLL (PER CUSIC YARD)
[i f '~"""M""""'m"
i ~:.::: :::::::.::: ,:-""
_I' G"'P;Ç&i:",j~~L~DET'I~~-
I '~M"'~ ~':'...m_- -
"--,~,, "~m_-
I'
Ii
[I
XB-10-6
1) 01\i.ì:i~
<ç;>0,,¡¡e,-¡m.=
0v/ð-=-
0"="","-.:::'"-
~~:-=
0"~..:...
0."..::.=,_~
IN EMITTER BOX
1-13
a:!-,
:Ji:!
~
0)
C
()
~
IRRIGATION LEGEND
¡rn."'I""""""""'I."".., """""'" ~"'.I'.".I
. ,.,." ""'0-, U"', 0" """" .,-
,..." "" .,'" ""'" "'"'.,~.,.., 'NO "'" """Y
.'_IT< ""'" "'"'" '" """ eo"
----- """""~"'.O."""-""""""'.'.<'S"><N""".
SM .."., """"SO<" '.'.<. Sa."", ""'.
"""'-~""-"""'-' son.",.,.,. "'><NI "'"'.
»
0
0
~~
~:
U
5ð
~l
.--
roGO-
, ¡¡:¡::."'G~
~,~
-~
-
~,,=.-
1Þ
~
~-~-
Î;r,;~-r=-
LANDS
- I
FOLEY LAND J ~ I
¡i:¡lu~n~'~"".m ;
~
~
i
SITE PLAN
.
~!i:m
Ib¡'i
ill:¡!.
~ ,:1.11
00'" VIN'OJn., 'NIlSm
'001' p., "", ffi'NOI" ""
SS313~IM
JB n5up :>::
-î
~;¡
ill!; ~
I ; ¡ 51
.1 ;1 I ~!
$1 ~I ø 1= II
'1 i, ¡ øl I~
! II I;;
.. If ~~ d! dill
~~ II '. ¡' ~ ¡ 1¡lq
: ~II~I Ii'P IH I '; I
I ;1: n~ ¡:!¡ ! illll! ~ !
.
.
'~"'~'8 - "--"-
.,-,~=.;:¡ ==-'::æ-:=:
~ , ,
~I Iii
~I 1'1
h ,I,
I II 5,'
- s' I It!
¡ ¡ ¡~ '"
ã, I ~ Iii ~ ii'
e. I ~ 1'1 ~ I ill
é ~ iii ¡ 1'1
i I t ~ II - ,1'1
ijl~~sld!l~il;
œJlJ
ø.
."2 .
'.
,
,~
i,;
!!I!
!Ii~
I,ll
il:I!lbli I,
~ ! ! II,f,! I ih~ilmfi hi i
R¡.f . Ii
......h~" '.~Ii
/
-------a 0 ~
/
/
!
" -, - - --,.. :...-.: ---.: ---.: - . - -- = = = = = = =
- -- -
~ !¡:m
Ufl"¡
~I'IJ!
1.:I.li
0°'" VlN'OJIl¥> 'NilSn'
'00" po, ",^, ffiJHOI" ""
SS313HIM
JB n6up ~
:::::::i:.!!J,..:; I:\.,"\\¡j!\:\.
.,.",!¡'L!¡-1;', ::."'-,=,==-
,,~ u
~ r>- N
;~ ~~. I
..~~ g~ ~()
~¡¡I ~g ~
-. - .- -- .. - -- -.--. - ,.-.. - .
'--- ----
.
.
.
~ -~~------- -- _..~_.--_~_~m_m_~.~- ~
,-'- -~ -
-
---'
---'
<!
~
:,,:
0
0
---'
CD
0
W
IJJ
0
Q.
0
[(
Q.
0
~
r-
0<.
Z
:J
[(
f-
¿;
---'
<!
Q.
0
W
IJJ
0
Q.
0
[(
Q.
~o
0..0::
~<t
<to
(J)Œ)
ii~'i
'iii
.,
u' ,
.~. :'
., i>'"
« '~i '",;
:~ "I.'
~~jli !¡~
!..-
C\J1ß
..J
::J~
0)
C
0
~
is
--
~\ .
~~
r, ~
2~
iS~
~~
:;;§
(]
r/:
Ud
1[
.
i~hl ~¡ ~~ ~
.._M~,~,_"m_m
~
~
---,
,--, :c-J
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PC RESOLUTIONS NO. 2004--
R:\C U 1'\2002\02-0717 Cingutar Wi",!ess Mono-PalmlSTAFF REPORT.doc
-> -8
'"':',;"""",,~~~.. '
-~;;.::;;'"
--i'L-
-c:;E~c~: ,-~-
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PJ!.O2-0717, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMITI
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A
WIRELES:S TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY WITH THREE
(3) ANTENNAS HOUSED WITHIN THE BULB PORTION OF A
PROPOSED FIFTY-SIX FOOT HIGH ARTIFICIAL PALM TREE
AND FOUR OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT CABINETS WITHIN A 310
SQUARE FOOT BLOCK WALL ENCLOSURE AT 31575
ENFIELD LANE, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF ENFIELD LANE, APPROXIMATELY 3,200 FEET EAST
OF RIVERTON LANE (APN 957-170-012)
WHEREAS, DouU Kearney, representing Cingular Wireless, filed Planning Application
No. PA02-0717, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and
Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. I?A02-0717 was processed including, but not
limited to a public notice, in the time and manh'er prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered Planning
Application No. PA02-0717 on April 7, 2004, 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 thIS conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA02-0717 subject to the
conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA02-0717
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. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. 02-0717 (Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan) hereby makes the following findings
as required by Section 1?04.010.E and Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
Conditional Use Permit ('I7.04.010E)
A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
development code.
The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed
conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the
applicable sections of the Development Code. The project as proposed meets the
general requirements as outlined in the Telecommunications Facility and Antenna
Ordinance. The antenna is located outside of all yard and street setbacks. The
R:\C U 1'12002\02-0717 Cingular Widess Mono-PalmIST AFF REPORT.doc
~
monopalm as proposed has been designed to blend in with the surrounding
environment. The support facility has been located and designed to minimize lits
visibility from the public right of way.
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and
development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use J..ill
not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. !
I
As proposed the telecommunication facility is designed as a monopalm with the
antennas mounted within the bulb of the tree so that the antennas will not be visible.
The proposed monopalm is fifty-six feet high and has been designed to blend with the
natural setting. This design and height is consistent with the existing built and natJral
environment and will not adversely affect the adjacent buildings. I
C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape! to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping
and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by ~he
Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the
neighborhood. i
The Planning Commission has reviewed the requirements of the performance standatds
delineated in the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 17.40), as well as the applicable sectic~ns
of the Development Code. As a result, the Planning Commission has determined t~at
the proposed conditional use meets the zoning requirements for projects located within
the Vety Low Density Residential zoning district. i
I
I
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety, and welfare of the community. I
Provisions are made in the General Plan, the Development Code, and Building and ~ire
Safety Codes to ensure that the public health, safety, and welfare are safeguarded. T{1e
project is consistent with these documents and will be conditioned to meet all applicafle
requirements. In addition, wireless telecommunication facilities and antennas are filot
known to emit hazardous substances or emit amounts of radiofrequency energy (RF)
above permitted levels as regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. i
E. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based bn
substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or qity
Council. :
I
The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicaJple
codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. I
Development Plan (17.05.01 OF)
F. The proposed use is in conformance with the general plan for Temecula and with
all applicable requirements of state law and other ordinances of the city. !
The proposed wireless telecommunications monopalm and equipment screen deSigJ is
in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, a'nd
R\C U 1'\2002\02-0717 Cingol", Wiretess Moon-PabnISTAFF REPORT.doc
10
.
.
.
.
.
.
Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance goals and policies, as well as with
all applicable requirements of state law.
G. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare.
The proposal is consistent with the land use designation and policies reflected in the City
of Temecula General Plan, as well as the development standards outlined the City of
Temecula Development Code. The site is therefore properly planned and zoned and
found to be physically suitable for the proposed fifty-six foot high-unmanned wireless
telecommunication facility designed as a monopalm.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Plan based on the Initial Study for Planning Application No. PA02-0717,
which was prepared purslJant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15072.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA02-0717 (Conditional Use
PermiVDevelopment Plan) to construct a wireless telecommunications facility with three (3)
antennas housed within the bulb portion of a proposed fifty-six foot high artificial palm tree and
four outdoor equipment c:lbinets within a block wall enclosure at 31575 Enfield Lane.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission thiil 7th day of April 2004.
John Telesio, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske" Secretary
[SEAL]
R:IC U 1'12002102-0717 Cingutar Wi.,tess Mono-PalmIST AFF REPORT-doc
11
I
I Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby ce1ify
that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning commissi,on
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7'h day of April, 2004, by the
following vote: I
I
I
I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
R,\C U 1'12002\02.0717 Cingutar Wireless Mono-PatmISTAFFREPORT.doc
t2
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
.
.
.
.
. EXHIBIT A
.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
.
RoIC U 1'12002102-0717 Cingular Win,!es, Mono-PabnISTAFFREPORT.doc
'" ' 13
']"~L
... .,~:lC':7:C::~~;¡'~b", '--~" ....,,--~,. u. ..
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA02-0717
Project Description:
A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to
construct and operate a wireless telecommunications
facility with three (3) antennas housed within the bulb
portion of a proposed 56-foot high artificial palm tree
and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a 310
square foot block wall enclosure at 31575 Enfield
Lane, generally located on the south side of Enfield
Lane, approximately 3,200 feet east of Riverton Lane.
DIF Category:
Exempt
Assessor's Parcul No:
957-170-012
Approval Date:
April 7, 2004
Expiration Date:
April 7,2006
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
1.
The applicanVdeveloper shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty Four Dollars
($64.00) for the County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination wi1h a DeMinimus Finding for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(b) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicanVdevelopl3r has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required
above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition
(Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
2.
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protHCt, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings
against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or 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. 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. City shall promptly notity
R:\C U 1'\2002\02-0717 Oingular Win.tess Mono-PalmIST AFF REPORT-doc
]4
3.
both the applicant and landowner of any claim, action, or proceeding to which t. is
condition is applicable and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The
City reserves the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interJst
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense. I
All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by tful is
conditional use permit.
The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Plannirg
Application No. PA02-0717. I
This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080 of the CitY's
Development Code. f
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to t e
approval of this Conditional Use Permit.
I
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 constructibn
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period, which is thereafter dilige~tly
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by t~is
~~ I
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit~ G
(Site Plan), H (Enlarged Site Plan), J (Elevations), K (Landscape Plan) and L (Color ard
Materials) contained on file with the Planning Department. I
Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintained to the reasona~le
satisfaction of the Planning Director. If it is determined that the landscaping is not being
maintained. the Planning Director shall have the authority to require the property ow~er
to bring the landscaping into conformance with the approved landscape plan. T/1e
continued maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of t/1e
developer or any successors in interest. i
If at any time during excavation/construction of the site, archaeologicaVcultural
resources, or any artifacts or other objects which reasonably appears to be evidencelof
cultural or archaeological resource are discovered, the property owner shall immediately
advise the City of such and the City shall cause all further excavation or ot~er
disturbance of the affected area to immediately cease. The Director of Planning i at
his/her sole discretion may require the property to deposit a sum of money it deems
reasonably necessary to allow the City to consult and/or authorize an independent, fyJly
qualified specialist to inspect the site at no cost to the City, in order to assess the
significance of the find. Upon determining that the determination is not 6n
archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of Planning shall notify the property ow~er
of such determination and shall authorize the resumption of work. Upon determining
that the discovery is an archaeologicaVcultural resource, the Director of Planning s~all
notify the property owner that no further excavation or development may take place uptil
a mitigation plan or other corrective measures have been approved by the Directorl of
Planning.
I
I
I
I
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
R,\C U P\2002\02.0717 Cingular Wireless Monn-PaIm\ST AFF REPORT.doc
15
.
.
.
.
.
.
11.
Excavation shall be monitored during all earthmoving associated with construction in
areas identified by a qualified paleontologic monitor as likely to contain paleontologic
resources per the recommendations contained in the Paleontological Resources
Assessment for the project titled Paleontological Resource Assessment; Proposed
"Foley Land'; Cingular Wireless Facility Number S8 216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane,
Temecula California by Michael Brandman Associates for Environmental Assessment
Specialists, Inc. dated May 7,2003.
Condition of approval No. 11 is also Mitigation Monitoring Measures of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
12.
13.
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 sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Planning Department and return one signed set to the Planning
Department for their files.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
14.
15.
A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
A maintenance/facility removal agreement, or enforceable provisions in a signed lease
that will assure the intent of the Telecommunication Facility and Antenna Ordinance will
be complied with, shall be signed by the applicant shall be submitted to the Planning
Director. The agreement shall comply with all provisions set forth in Section 17.40.210
of the Ordinance.
16.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department. These plans shall conform substantially with the
approved Exhibit "P, 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 plans shall be accompanied by the following
items:
a.
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 cos1 estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with approved plan).
A landscape maintenance program shall be submitted for approval, which details
the proper maintenance of all proposed plant materials to assure proper growth
and landHcape development for the long-term esthetics of the property. The
approved maintenance program shall be provided to the landscape maintenance
contractor who shall be responsible to carry out the detailed program.
b.
c.
d.
e.
R:IC U 1'12002102-0717 Cingular Wiretess Mouo-PabnlST AFF REPORT.doc
17
Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, the apPIiCjnt
shall schedule an inspection with the Planning Department to insure that the monopa m
and antennas were installed in accordance with the approved plans.
Prior to the release of power, occupancy, or any use allowed by this permit, all required
landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent with the
abovementioned landscape plans (see Condition of Approval No. 15 above). The pla~ts
shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests and the irrigation system shall be
properly constructed and in good working order. I
The property owner shall submit a landscape maintenance bond in a form and amoJnt
approved by the Planning Department for a period of one year from the date of tr' e
release of power or first occupancy permit.
. I
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT I
20. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disablèd
Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code. i
Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plans showing complianpe
with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. All street lights and oth'er
outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department iof
Building and Safety. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shihe
directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. If Applicable. i
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work. I
I
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulatio~s.
Provide all details on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April
1p,1~9d8). f. df'I'th"I't II
rovi e appropriate stamp 0 a reglstere pro esslona WI orlglna signa ure on pans
prior to permit issuance. I
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. I
I
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the
approved building plans, will require separate approvals and permits. I
I
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates t~e
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance No.
0-90-04, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for ahy
site within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. I
18.
19.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Prior to Release of Power
17.
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
R,\C U 1'\2002\02-0717 Cingutar Wireless Mona-PalmIST AFF REPORT-doc
17
.
.
.
.
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. - 6:30 p.m.
"!O work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays
FIRE DEPARTMENT
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau
reviews building plans. 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.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall maintain an unobstructed width of not less
than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than
thirteen (13) feet Bix (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet, which have not been completed, shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
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)
During construction, all locations where structures are to be built or altered shall
maintain 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)
During construction ALL FIRE and LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS will be maintained in
working order and up to their original design and performance specifications.
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 emerg'3ncy access by fírefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
Provide a 2A: 10BC fire extinguisher inside each building or temporary structure on the
site.
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any chan'ges in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code
permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and
approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105)
The applicant sh~lll submit for review and approval by the Riverside County Department
of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory StatemHnt and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should any
quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce any
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E)
Ro\C U P\200Z\OZ-m17 Cingular Wi.,tess Mnno-Palm\ST AFF REPORTdoc
t8
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
39.
The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal ¡of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated March 2, 2003 from the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District I
The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated February 24, 2003 from t~e
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California I
The applicant shall comply with the attached letter dated January 16, 2003 from t~e
Rancho California Water District. I
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 i in
conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to tpe
project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. I
I
I
40.
41.
42.
Date
Applicant's Printed Name
Applicant's Signature
K\C U P\2002\O2-0717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Pahn\STAFF REPORT-doc
19
.
.
.
WARREN D. WILLIAMS
Gene~er-Chief Engineer
.
.
.
~
('-.
í""',
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE. CA 92501
909.955.1200
909.788.9965 FAX
51180 ]
'~Œ@ŒDWŒ~
~J MAR 4 2002 æJ
IUVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DlS1RICT
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-!l033
Attention:RnLFE:. PRt=:/S£NDAN'Z...
ladies and Gentlemen:
By
Re:
PA 02-Dl/7
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The District also does. not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or
other flood hazard reports for such cases. Distiict 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 facilitie!, which could be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system,
and District Area Drainage Flan 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 cliecked 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 Interest proposed.
This project involves, District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on
written request of thl~ City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and
inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be
required.
This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be
considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted
Master Drainage Plan. The District woula consider accepting ownership 01 sucn taCillues on wnnen request
of the City. Facilitie> must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will
be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required.
L This project is located within the limits of the District's "- ~ '${}~~
Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adop ; app lca e ees s 0 pal y cashier's
check or money order only to tl\e Flood Control DistriCt prior to issuance of bu' ding or grading permits
whichever comes fi~¡t. Fees to be paid should be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of the actual
permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES\ permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approva( should not be given until the
City has determined that the :project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt.
If this project involves a FedE,ral Emergem:y Management Agency (FEMA\ map!!ed flood plain, then the CitY should
require tl\e applicant to pre vide all studies, calculations, plans and other Information r~uired to meel FEMA
requirements, and should fuirther require that the applicant obtain a Conditional letter of Map Revision (ClOMR)
prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a letter of Map Revision (lOMR) prior to
occupancy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this projectj' the City should require the applicant to
obtain a Section 1601/1603 A9reement from the Califomia Department 0 Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies
indicating the project is exempt from these reqUIrements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Qualitv Certification
may be required from the lo(:al California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404
permit. .
c:
d:;D« \¡
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior CIvil Engineer
Date: 3-Z-Z-c:D;:,
5KH,
1!11
MWD
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Ifr![¥, i'~ !? ij ~r ŒI~:l
~~_:~OO3 WI
Your Case No. PA02-0717
MWD San Diego Pipeline No.3
Sta. 1332+00 to 1344+00
MWD San Diego Pipeline No.4
Sta. 1336+00 to 1343+00
MWD San Diego Pipeline No.5
Sta. 1336+00 to 1343+00
R!W Parcels SDA-P-3-13,
142-3-1 (Fee) and-4
Substr. Job No. 2029-03-001
.
Executive Office
February 24, 2003
Mr. Rolfe Preisendanz
Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
.
Dear Mr. Preisendanz:
Enfield Lane - Cingular Wireless Telecommunications Facility
We received your project transmittal notice on January 22, 2003, and prints ofthe
plans (T-l, A-O through A-3, C-l and C-2) for the proposed Cingular Wireless
Telecommunications facility improvement project (Case No. P A02-0717) located
at 31575 Enfield Lane, east ofRiverton Lane and north of HumboIt Court, in the
city of Temecula.
The location of Metropolitan's partially delineated 50-foot-wide slope easement
within the subject property, as shown on Sheets A-O, A-I, C-l and C-2, is
generally in agreement with our records. Metropolitan's 70-foot-wide fee prop-
erty and San Diego Pipelines 3, 4 and 5 are adjacent to the subject property,
abutting and paralleling the eastern boundary.
There appear to be no conflicts with our facilities and rights-of-way since
Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way are located outside the construction
I .
700 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. Mailing Address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, California 90054-0153. Telephone (213) 217-6000
I
I
THE METROPOliTAN WATER OISmlCTOF SOUT/'ERN CAliFORNIA
/
.
.
.
Mr. Rolfe Preisendanz
Page 2
February 24, 2003
limits of the project, and should not be affected by the proposed telecommuni-
cations facilities.
However, we request that a stipulation be added to the plans or specifications
to notifY Mr. John Martinez of our Water System Operations Group, telephone
(909) 776-2616, at least two working days prior to starting any work in the
vicinity of our facilities.
We are returning prints of Sheet T-I, stamped "REVIEWED - CORRECTIONS
NOTED - NO RJ~SUBMITTAL REQUIRED," and Sheets A-O, A-I, C-I and
C-2, stamped "REVIEWED - NO CORRECTIONS NOTED."
For any further cOlTespondence with Metropolitan relating to this project, please
make reference to the Substructures Job Number shown in the upper right-hand
corner of the first page of this letter. Should you require any additional infonna-
tion, please contact Mr. Ken Chung, telephone (213) 217-7670.
Very truly yours,
6U-<)~. ~
Susan M. Walters
Engineering Technician III
Substructures Team
KC:ly
DOC#: 2029-03-001
Enclosures (5)
@
Rachø
Water
&ani of DU-odou
..... D. IIennaD
,,",,'doot
JelbeyL.Minkl~
&. Viœ Pœsidoot
StephenJ. Co~
Ralph B. Dally
.... B. Dnke
John E. Hoagland
CoahaP.Kn
Offi~,
John P. HennIgar
-< "reraH'anag~
PhillipL.Fo"'"
Dinrloc of Fimmœ-
Tre~~œ
E.P. "Hob" Lemo~
]fuoctmfE_ooriDg
Kenneth C. """"
I>ire<tocofOpuati~
&M""""'œ
Pe....,.B.Lnncl<
eon_Um
IJnda M. -
Irurtrid"""""l...........ti~
s.rn~ Manag~
C. Miclm" Cowe"
Best ..... .. Krie,~ LLP
""",ralCo""",,
1i8
January 16, 2003
m,_E~~2,~ c1 N~~, ~r!
, Ü ] I '.n. .' i -" cJ:: nl(i II
(J 2J L:l\ c.! ¿U '.:!.i 2J ~
Rolfe Preisendanz, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
CINGULAR WIRELESS ANTENNA ARRAY
PARCEL NO.2 OF PARCEL MAP 13530
APN 957-170-012
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA02-0717
FOLEY SITE - ENFIELD LANE
Dear Mr. Preisendanz:
Please be advised that the above-referenced project is located within ~e
bouildaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWDlDistrict). RCwþ
operates an existing two-way radio system in the immediate vicinity of iliis
site. The District requests that the developer assure RCWD that there win
not be any interference between the proposed project and the District>s
operation of its equipment. II
If you should have any questions, please contact us.
I
I
i
I
,
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DIS1RICT
/~
e~
Steve Brannon, P .E.
Development Engineering Manager
03\SB:atO12IFO12-TlIFCF
c:
Craig Elitharp. Water Operations Manager
Paul Gonzalez, General Services Manager
Rancho Colifomia W.tec Diat,;..
42135Wincl>œtecRoad' PœtOffiœBox9011' T=ocula.Califomia925S9-9017 0 (909) 296-ô900 0 FAX (909)296-6860
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
IIIIITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
R,IC U 1'\2002102-0717 Cinguta< Win:tess Mono-PalmIST AFF REI'ORT,doc
9
--<C~'_M~J
, .'", ",
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
.
Plannin lication No. PA02-o717
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula CA 92589-9033
Stuart Fisk, Assistant Planner
909 694-6400 ,
located at 31575 Enfield Lane, east of Riverton Lane and north of
Humbolt Lane A.P.N.957-170-o12
Mark Rivera
Cingular Wireless
2521 Michelle Drive
2nd Aoor
Tustin CA 92780
Ve Low L
Ve Low Densi Residential VL
A Conditional Use Penmit to construct, operate, establish and
maintain a wireless telecommunications facility with three (3)
antennas housed within the bulb portion of a proposed 56-foot
artificial palm tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets within a
block wall enclosure.
The project site is located on a 3.17 acre residential site that
contains a single-family custom home. The property is generally
surrounded by similar larger acreage residential-rural property, with
some Low Medium (LM) zoned residential property (minimum 7,200
square foot lots) located south of the site. The project site is
separated from homes in the area by no less than approximately 300
feet.
The project will require a building penmit from the Building and Safety
De artment.
",!",.:' ,~
R:1e U PI2OO2IO2-tJ717 Cingula' Wireless Mono-Palm~nitial Study,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.
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
x
. '
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be re ared
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 ro.ect ro onent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be re ared. I
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is r uired
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 IMPACTIREPORT
is r uired, but it must anal ze onl the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, beci1use 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 lire
im sed u on the ro osed ro.eet, nothin further is r uired. I
~
gnature
I~/{ { (6 ~
Date I -
s~ý+- ~Sf::::.-
Printed name
For
.
R:\C U P\2OO2\O2.()717 Cingula, Wireless Mono-Palm~nitial Study.doc
1. Land Use and Planning. VVoufd the project:
a.
b.
c.
IsJìu<isand:SU . binlbfOOìiáflÒriSQuìcèS
Ph sicall divide an established commun' .
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 applieable habitat conservation plan or
natural communi com¡ervation Ian?
x
x
Comments:
1.a.
1.b.
.
1.c.
The project site consists of 532 square feet within a 3.17 -acre residential parcel that contains an
existing single-family cuHtom home. The proposed project would add a wireless telecommunications
facility to the site. The facility would be an un-staffed facility consisting of three (3) antennas housed
within the bulb portion of a proposed 56-foot artificial palm tree and four outdoor equipment cabinets
within a block wall enclosure. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project since locating the
proposed telecommunication facility on a single-family lot, developed with a single family home, would
not divide an established community.
The proposed project is c:onsistent with the Goals, Objectives, Programs and Policies of the General
Plan and meets the requirements of Chapters 17.06 (Residential Districts) and 17.40
(Telecommunications Facility and Antenna Ordinance) of the Development Code. Because the
proposed facility is consistent with Chapters 17.06 and 17.40 of the Development Code, no impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. The site has been graded for the construction of the existing single-
family home and is not within any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan. Themfore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a.
b.
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 infrastlUcture ?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of re lacement housin elsewhere?
x
x
x
R:IC U P\2002IO2-0717 CingularWireless M"no-Palm~nltial Study.doc
3
Comments:
2.a.
The project involves the installation and operation of an un-staffed wireless telecommunicatiqns faCility.
which is not anticipated to induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The projec
is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations of Very Low (VL) and! Very Low
Density Residential (VL) and Chapter 17.40 of the Zoning Ordinance (Telecommunications Facility and
Antenna Ordinance). No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. I
The project, which involves the addition of a wireless telecommunications facility to a resident allot with
an existing single-family home, will not displace any people or existing housing. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project. I
I
I
I
2.b,c.
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the pròject?
a.
ii
iii
iv
~ ~~Ct
X
X
I
I
x I
X
X i
X
X
X
X
b.
c.
d.
e.
Comments:
3.a.i. The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo fault zone area nor is their substantial eviderce of a
known fault on or in the vicinity of the project site (Source 1, Figure 7-1, page 7-6 and Sourcel4,
Section 3.3, page 3-2). Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.a.ii. There may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or ~xpansive .
soils. Although there are no known fault hazard zones on the property, the project is located in
Southem California, which is an area that is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will
be mitigated through building construction, which will be consistent with engineered and Unif6rm
.~.~~,,_._-~._-~ . I
_a.m.
3.a.iv.
3.b.
3.c.
.
3.d.
3.e.
.
Building Code standards. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project (Source 4, Section 3.3, page 3-2).
The project site is not located within an area delineated as a liquefaction hazard (Source 1, Figure 7-2,
page 7-8). Because of tile lack of shallow groundwater and relatively dense soils, the potential for
liquefaction at the site is considered low (Source 4, Section 4.2, page 4-1). Furthermore, any
potentially significant impacts associated with the development of this site will be mitigated during
building construction, which will be consistent with engineered and Uniform Building Code standards.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Based on the relatively fI.;¡t topography of the specific location for the wireless telecommunications
facility within the subject property and based on the nature of the facilities to be installed, the potential
for landslides related to ~he project is considered low. The project will be conditioned to follow the
recommendations described in Section 4 of the geotechnical report prepared for the project (Source 4,
Section 4, pages 4-1 to 4-8) to mitigate for any potential impacts involving landslides. After mitigation
measures are performed, no significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Based on the topograph)' and soils of the specific location for the wireless telecommunications facility,
and based on the nature of the facilities to be installed, the potential for substantial soil erosion is
considered low. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
There may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or expansive
soils. Although the projeçt site is not located within an area delineated as a liquefaction hazard (Source
1, Figure 7-2, page 7-8) and there are no known fault hazard zones on the property, the project is
located in Southem California, which is an area that is seismically active. As wireless
telecommunications facilities are generally located at elevated sites, the project site is situated on a
hilltop. While slopes do ¡¡urround the project site, the project site itself is situated on a relatively flat
area, so the risk of an on. or off-site landslide is considered low. Any potentially significant impacts will
be mitigated through building construction, which will be consistent with engineered and Uniform
Building Code standards. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project (Source 4, Section 3.3, page 3-2).
There is a potential for impacts from expansive soils unless mitigation is incorporated. The project will
be conditioned to follow the recommendations described in the geotechnical report prepared for the
project (Source 4, Section 4, pages 4-1 to 4-8) to mitigate for any potential impacts involving landslides.
After mitigation measure¡¡ are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project as the project application involves the
construction, operation, establishment and maintenance of an un-staffed wireless telecommunications
facility. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\C U P\2002\O2'{)717 Cingula, Wireless Mcoo-Palm~nnial Study.doc
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
,,";¡$'if~
.Si¡ rilfièa~. No
". .Jíria",. ",I.",.
..JssUfis-iúJ<fS. 'Intoím¡j iòrì;Sòu"""".. .,,'
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
r uirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer yolume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearny wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which ermits have been ranted?
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 floodin 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
olluted runoff?
Otherwise substantiall de rade water uali ?
Place housing within a 1O0-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
ma?
Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area structures
which would im ede 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?
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
x
Comments:
4.a. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. D~velopment
will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) penmit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be penmitted until an
NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complyi~g with the
NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than sign~icant. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. I
4.b, f. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substa~tiallY with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering þf the 10C.
groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and qualityi of groun
waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
R:\C U PI2OO2\02-o717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Patm~nitial Study.doc
6
excavations or through ~;ubstantialloss 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.
.c, d. The proposed project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that 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 the wireless telecommunication facility. While absorption rates and surface runoff will
change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
4.e. The project will not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stomn water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The
project will be required Ìf) comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. The project will be
conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as a result of development of the subject site. In
addition, the project will be conditioned and designed so that drainage will not impact surrounding
properties. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.g-i. The project will not place, people, housing, or other structures within a 1O0-year flood hazard area. The
project site is located outside of the 1 Oo-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 seiche, tsunami, or mudflow as these events are not
known to occur in this re¡ ion. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.j.
.
.
R:IC U PI2OO2IO2-O717 Clngular Wireless Mono-Palm~n"ial Study,doc
7
x I
x I
I
I
Comments: I
5.a-c. The project, which proposes an un-staffed wireless telecommunications facility consisting of ~n artificial
palm tree, three (3) antennas and four (4) equipment panels, will not conflict with applicabl~ air quality
plans nor violate air quality or pollution standards. The project will be within the threshold foripotentiall~
significant air quality impact established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District a:.
depicted in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Source 3) page 6-10, Table 6.2. No irPpacts are
anticipated as a result of this project. I
I
5.d. There are no known sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity of the
project site. The development of a wireless telecommunications facility may create minor! pollutants
during the construction phase of the project emanating from fugitive dust and small qyantities of
construction equipment pollutants. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered
significant. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not anticipated to generate pollutants.
Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant as a result of this project.
5.e. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility is not anticipated to create objectionable qdors.
However, some objectionable odors may be produced during the construction of the propose\J facilities.
These potential impacts, however, are anticipated to be of short duration and would not affect a
substantial number of people. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant ~s a result
of this project. I
I
5.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicabl~ quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. . Would the project: I
1S$.,.;sáiictS. ""';iorOmiiiijo!Ì$Oo","s....
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air uali Ian?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existin or ro'ected air uar 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 uantitative thresholds for ozone recursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of eo Ie?
x
x
x
.
R:\C U P\2002\02-G717 CingularWireless Mono-Paim~nitial Study.doc
8
6. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the project:
_mments: .
6.a, b. Development of a wireless telecommunications facility will create a slight increase traffic in the vicinity
of the project during construction of the facility. These impacts will be of short duration and are not
considered significant. Once construction of the facility is complete, only occasional traffic for
maintenance vehicles willi result from this project. Because the project would generate very few vehicle
trips and because the e~isting roadways have been developed consistent with the City's General Plan,
no further traffic studies were required. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Development of this property will not 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. As stated by
Keith Downs of the Airport Land Use Commission in an April 17, 2003 response to a request for
comments on the project, this site is outside of the French Valley Airport's Area of Influence. Therefore,
no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current
City and building code s1andards and does not propose any hazards. No 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 and will not interfere
with access to nearby US'3S. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The proposed project will not impact parking for the existing home on site and will only require a
parking area for a maintHnance vehicle, which can be accommodated within the existing private on-site
turn around area. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
eg. As an unmanned wireles:. telecommunications facility, altemative transportation is not applicable to the
project. The project will not interfere with designed adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
6.c
6.d
6.1.
lŠS'uesandS ,lrifOOriatio"sources
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing tl"affic 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 con E,stion at intersections?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
mana ement a enc for desi nated roads or hi hwa s?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safe risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incom atible uses e. ., famn ui ment?
Result in inad uate emer enc access?
Result in inad uate arkin ca aci .
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus tumouts,
bic cle racks?
No
I"" d
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:IC U P\2002102-O717 Cingular Wireless M')no-Pafm~nitial Study.doc
9
f.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a.
. .
. ~áiidcS . JoífðMatiOriSÒUíÍíO$. ..."..
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
Califomia 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?
x
x
b.
x
c.
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 im ede the use of native wildlife nurse 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 Ian? I
Comments: I
I
7.a-d. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded for construction of the existing sihgle family
home on the property. There is currently no indication that any unique, rare, threatened or epdangered
species of plants on the site. Therefore, the proposed wireless telecommunication facility is not
anticipated to reduce the number of species. The site has been developed with a single-fahlily home
and the addition of an artificial palm tree and four equipment cabinets will not create a signifidant barrier
to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project. I
7.e. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated sþecies are
protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; howeyer, they are not protected elsewnere in the
City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, there are no locally designated specifs on site.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. I
The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. The project Y-'iII 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 ahticipated .
as a result of this project. I
d.
x
e.
x
x
7.1.
R:\C U P\2OO2I02'()717 Cingula, Wireless Mono-Palmllnitial Study.doc
10
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
b.
l"iJe$;~rid'siö¡ÒiïliåtiòwSøù~,
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 avélilability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovory site delineated on a local
eneral Ian, s ecific Ian or other land use Ian?
a.
x
x
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 areas into Mineral
Resource Zones (MRZ) to identify statewide or regional significance of mineral deposits based on the
economic value of the dE!posits and accessibility. Within the City of Temecula the zoning classification
of MRZ-3a has been applied by the state. The MRZ-3 areas contain 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. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
.
.
R:\C U P\2002102'()717 Cingular Wireless Mono-PaJm~nmal Study.doc
11
c.
d.
e.
1.
g.
h.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a.
.ISSúes'andS '... ,1rilòhnàtíiiri~.u~ .
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
dis osal 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
workin in the ro'ect area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
workin in the ro'ect area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation Ian?
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 intennixed with wildlands?
b.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
I
I
I .
The proposed wireless communication facility will not create a hazard to the public through the routine
transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed facility will operkite in full
compliance with the regulations and licensing requirements of the FCC, FAA and CPUC a~ governed
by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Comments:
9.a.
9.b.
9.c.
,
Since the proposed wireless communication facility is not intended to utilize hazardous mat~rials, it is
not anticipated that the project would create a significant hazard to the public or the e~vironment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this projej;t.
This site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, ~I 0 impact.
are anticipated.
R:\C U P\2OO2\O2-O717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm~nltial Study.doc
12
9.d.
.,1.
9.g.
9.h.
.
.
The project site is not located near a site 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. Furthemnore, a:s stated by Keith Downs of the Airport Land Use Commission in an April 17,
2003 response to a request for comments on the project, this site is outside of the French Valley
Airport's Area of Influen<:e. Therefore, no impacts upon airport uses are anticipated as a result of the
project.
The proposed un-staffed wireless telecommunication facility would 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 is not adjacent to wildlands and is not susceptible to wildland fire danger. Therefore,
no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:IC U P\2002\02-o717 Cingula. Wireless Mono-Palm~n~ial Study.doc
13
--T.
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a.
b,
c.
d.
e.
f.
Jssøes,ânèf'S . ñfòrmàtiOiiiSOOkès.
Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance or a licable standards of other a encies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
roundborne vibration or roundbome noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
ro'ect?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the ro'ect?
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
ro'ect area to excessive noise levels?
x
X
X
X
X
X
Comments:
: .
1 O.a-d. The equipment associated with the proposed wireless communication facility operates virtually vibration
and noise-free, Increases to noise levels will likely occur during the construction phase of the project.
These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. Upon conjpletion of
construction of the future wireless telecommunication facility, it is not anticipated that the faèility would
result in significant increases to noise levels. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipatE3d to result
~~~~ I
i
1 O.e, 1. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public or private use airport. Therefor~, people
working in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airpprt.
i
.
R:\C u PI2OO2IO2-Q717 Cingula, Wireless Mono-Palm~nitial Study,doc
14
11. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have a substantial adverse physical impacts associates
with the provisions of new 01' physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically
tered governmental facilitiE!S, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
pacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the pubU,= services:
a.
b.
c
d.
e
x
X
X
Comments:
11.a, b, e.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire,
police, recreation or othor public facilities. While the need for such services are not anticipated, the
addition of a wireless communication facility at the site does have the potential to increase the need for
these services. Therefor,e, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
11.c, d.
The proposed unmanned wireless telecommunication facility itself is not creating residential use and
therefore will have no impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities, nor will it
. result in impacts to parks. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
.
R:IC U PI2OO2IO2-Q717 Clngular Wireless MU1o-Palm~nltial Study.doc
15
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
... . .
ISsil"si",fišu' ..,,¡""lifôínjàtiöi1:'s¡¡ûrœ&'
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
a licable Re ional Water Quali 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 e anded entitlements needed?
Result in a detemnination 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 pemnitted capacity to
accommodate the ro.ect's solid waste di osal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
re ulations related to solid waste?
x
X
X
X
X
X
X .
Comments:
12.a-g. The proposed wireless telecommunication facility will not impact water, wastewater, landfill or'solid
waste facilities as the facility only consists of an unmanned wireless telecommunication facilitY
composed of a three (3) antennas housed within an artificial palm tree and four (4) equipmenticabinets.
No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. i
.
R:\C U f'\2002\02-Q717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm~nltlal Study.doc
16
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a.
b.
" " . "
'lS$4esaodiSù' "ilöfÓ!!Ì)atiQö"Sòort:eS..
Have a substantial advorse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic building
within a state scenic hiqhwa ?
Substantially degrade tile existing visual character or
uali of the site and its surroundin s?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
x
c.
x
d.
x
Comments:
13.a, c.
Any potential impacts to scenic vistas created by the proposed wireless communication facility will be
mitigated through the usle of building materials to make the equipment enclosure complimentary to the
existing single-family home. Additionally, the proposed artificial palm tree will be of a similar size and
type as the palm trees existing on site and additional live palm trees will be incorporated into the project
site. Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
13.b. The proposed project will not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock
. outcropping, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway as the project is not located in the
vicinity of a state scenic Ilighway. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
13.d. Since outdoor lighting is not proposed for the project, the project is not anticipated to increase the
potential for significant impacts from light and glare. However, since all light and glare has the potential
to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory, the project will be conditioned to comply with Ordinance No.
655 Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
.
R:IC U P\2002\02-O717 Cingula, Wireless M')no-Palm~nftial Study.doc
17
a.
.'"" ' ".1.....,"'aóíl;S'
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 archaeol ical resource ursuant to Section 1506.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or uni ue eolo ic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
--I
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
x
b.
x
c.
x
d.
x
Comments:
14.a, b.
The project site is located in a developed/disturbed area that is not located in an area of arc~eological
sensitivity pursuant to the General Plan (Source 1, Figure 5-6). A records search performed by Michael
Brandman Associates (Source 5, pages 1 & 2) indicated that there are no recorded cultural properties
(prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, historic buildings, structures, objects, or district~) within
0.25 miles of the project site and that the historical sensitivity of the project area is considered to be
"low". No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. I
14.c, d. I
As discussed in a Paleontological Resource Assessment prepared for the project (Source 6, page 1), a
records search (by the Division of Geological Sciences located at the San Bernardino CountY Museum.
of geological maps and the Regional Paleontologic Locality Inventory (RPLI) for the project area
showed that there are numerous fossil localities within 0-4 miles from the project site. A surVey of the
project site conducted by Michael Brandman Associates (Source 6, page 2) indicated that th~ project
site has been recently impacted as a result of housing construction and that most of the topsoil near the
house and in the drive area (leading to the project site) consist of freshly turned earth. While! no
paleontological resources were observed during the survey, this finding does not preclude the
possibility that resources will be uncovered at depth once construction begins. The site is loCated in an
area that has high paleontological sensitivity pursuant to the General Plan (Source 1, Figure '5-7).
Therefore, the project will be conditioned to follow the recommendations of the Paleontologid Resource
Assessment, which includes monitoring of excavation areas by a qualified paleontological m?nitor.
This mitigation measure will be adopted as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
With mitigation measures in place the potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a less¡than
significant level of impact.
I
I
I
,
¡
I
I
.
R:IC U P\2002\02-o717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palmllnnial Study.doc
18
15. RECREATION. Would tht! project:
a.
b.
. Jssuë'...â"<I'$u
Would the project incre'ase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that sub~~antial physical deterioration of the
facili would occur or he 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?
x
x
Comments:
15.a, b.
The proposed un-staffecl wireless telecommunication facility will have no impact on the demand for
neighborhood or regiom:tl parks or other recreational facilities, nor will it effect existing recreational
opportunities. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project.
16. Agricultural Resources. Would the project:
b.
c.
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Fanmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importan'ce (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Fanmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the Califomia Resources Agency,
to non-a ricultural use'1
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-a ricultural use?
x
x
x
Comments:
16.a, b.
The project site is not currently in agricultural production and is not known to have been used for
agricultural purposes in the past. Furthermore, this property is not considered prime or unique farmland
of statewide importance pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency or tho City of Temecula's General Plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
16.c. The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of T emecula, and the site
is not regulated by a WiII:iamson Act contract. Therefore, will be no impacts as a result of this project.
.
R:\C U P\2oo2\O2-o717 Cingula, Wireless M >no-Palm~nitial Study.doc
19
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a.
b,
c,
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
Califomia histo or rehisto ,
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
ro'ects, and the effects of robable future ro'ects?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directl or indirectl ?
x
x
x
i
I
17,a. This site has been developed with a single family home and the surrounding area consists of properties.
zoned Very Low (VL) and Low Medium (LM) that do not contain significantly viable habitat forifish or
wildlife species, The project site is not located in an area designated by the General Plan as sensitive
habitat (Source 1; Figure 5-3), It is not anticipated that the addition of an artificial mono palm land
equipment cabinets for the wireless telecommunication facility, or the proposed live palm tree!!, would
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, thre~ten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or enqangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prlehistOry.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
17.b, It is not anticipated that the addition an artificial mono palm and equipment cabinets for the u~manned
wireless telecommunication facility, or the proposed live palm trees, would have impacts that lire
individually limited but cumulatively considerable. No impacts are anticipated as a result of th~ project.
I
17.c. Wireless telecommunication facilities are subject to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules
for compliance with Radio Frequency (RF) exposure guidelines, The Telecommunications Ad! of 1996
contains provisions relating to federal jurisdiction to regulate human exposure to RF emissions from
certain transmitting devices and states that "No State or local govemment or instrumentality t~ereof
may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the
basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such faciliti~s comply
with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions", This facility will be reviewed ~y the
FCC for compliance with their regulations and, according to the FCC, compliance with their regulations
concerning limits for RF exposure will result in human exposure that is well within safety margins,
Therefore, based on FCC rules, no environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on .
human beings, either directly or indirectly, are anticipated as a result of this project,
Comments:
R:\C U P\2002\O2-{)717 Cingular Wireless Mono-Palm~nitial Study.doc
20
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one clr more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
gative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
attached sheets.
a.
b.
c.
Earlier anal ses used. Identif earlier anal ses and state where the 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 b miti ation measures based on the earlier anal sis.
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 the' address site-s ecific conditions for the ro'eCt.
18.a. The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in
preparing this Initial Stucly. These documents are available for review at the City of Temecula Planning
Department located at ~3200 Business Park Drive.
18.b. There were earlier impa<:ts, which affected this project, however it was difficult to assess whether they
were adequately addresBed as mitigation measures.
18.c. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is attached.
1.
2.
8
5.
6.
.
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
A geotechnical report titlled Cingular Wireless Proposed Communications Facility; Foly Land Site No.
58-216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula, Califomia by URS Corporation dated January 30,2003.
Cultural Resource Assessment; Proposed "Foley Land"; Cingular Wireless Facility Number S8 216-01;
31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula California by Michael Brandman Associates for Environmental
Assessment Specialists, Inc. dated April 21, 2003.
Paleontological Resourcl~ Assessment; Proposed "Foley Land"; Cingular Wireless Facility Number 58
216-01; 31575 Enfield Ulne, Temecula Califomia by Michael Brandman Associates for Environmental
Assessment Specialists, Inc. dated May 7,2003.
R:IC U P\2oo2lO2-O717 Cingular Wireless M"n<>-Palm~n"ial Study.doc
21
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PAO2-0717
(Conditional Use Permit)
CULTURAL RESOURCES
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
.
1. Directly or indirectly destroying any unique paleontologibal
or archaeological resources. !
Excavation shall be monitored during all earthmoving I
associated with construction in areas identified by a I
qualified paleontologic monitor as likely to contain ,
paleontologic resources per the recommendations I
contained in the Paleontologic Resource Assessment for
the project titled Paleontological Resource Assessment;
Proposed "Foley Land"; Cingular Wireless Facility Num~er
sa 216-01; 31575 Enfield Lane, Temecula California by
Michael Brandman Associates for Environmental :
Assessment Specialists, Inc. dated May 7,2003.
Place the above condition of approval on this project so!
that if palentological resources are encountered during I
excavation, work shall be halted or diverted in the
immediate area while a qualified paleontologist evaluatès
the finds and makes recommendations. :
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit and during the
grading process.
Responsible Monitoring Party:
Planning and Public Works Departments
R:\C U P\2002\02-Q717 Cingula, Wireless Mono-PalmIMftigation Monftoring Program.doc
1
.
.
.
ITEM #7
.
.
.
.
.
Date of Meeting:
Prepared by:
File Number
STAFF REPORT- PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
~17,2004
Stuart Fisk
Title:
Assistant Planner
Application Type:
Minor Conditional Use Permit
PA03-06~79
Project Description:
Recommendation:
(Check One)
CEQA:
(Check One)
A. Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a 1,670 square foot
facility renting computer time for the use of word processing
software and for internet use, including internet gaming, within
the Promenade Mall located at 40820 Winchester Road, Suite 1040.
~ Approve with Conditions
0 Deny
0 Continue for Redesign
0 Continue to:
0 Recommend Approval with Conditions
0 Recommend Denial
~ Categorically Exempt
Class 1
(Class)
0 Negative Declaration
0 Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
OEIR
R,IM C U 1'\2003\03-0679 Cyrer Zon,lST AFF REPORT.doc
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
Applicant:
CyberZONE Inc.
.
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
Apri17,2004
I
[
I
I
Completion Date:
November 25, 2004
General Plan Designation:
Community Commercial
Zoning Designation:
SP-7 (Temecula Regional Center)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Vacant Suite of the Promenade Mall
North:
South:
East:
West:
L
I
I
I
I
I
Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressFd,
and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. i
Retail/Coffee Shop within the Promenade Mall
Restaurant and Movie Theater within the Promenade Mall
Promenade Mall Parking Lot
Plaza/Restaurants within the Promenade Mall
BACKGROUND SUMMARY
¿$] 1.
I
I
I
The Planning Commission has the discretion to apply operational conditions deemed necessary
to make the findings of approval, including but not limited to the following: I
.
ANALYSIS
Need for adult supervision;
Hours of operation;
Inside and outside security measures;
Noise attenuation;
Interior waiting area.
I
Staff has discussed concerns with the applicant regarding adult oriented material. As a condiÌion
of approval, the viewing of adult material is not permitted within the facility. The applicant ~as
assured staff that all computers within the facility will maintain a filter system that will eliminþte
the customer's ability to search for or to launch adult materials, including sites related! to
weapons, rape, and violent crime. The facility will be well lit, with all computer screens out in the
open where CyberZONE staff can easily monitor all users in the facility for inapproprihte
material. ¡
.
R,\M C U \'12003\03-0679 Cyber Z<melST AFF REPORT.doc
.
.
.
The project has been conditioned to ensure that juveniles are not exposed to any display of adult
materials and to ensure this type of adult entertainment is not present on site (see condition no.
18); conditioned to limit ttle hours of operation (see condition no. 9); conditioned for the minimum
number of employees re,quired to staff the facility (see condition no. 11); and conditioned to
provide at least one adul1 employee (not less than 21 years of age) providing on-site supervision
(see condition no. 12).
The City of Temecula Police Department has reviewed the proposed project and concurs with
the requested hours of operation, which are the same as the Promenade Mall hours, as follows:
Monday-Saturday: 10A.Mt09P.M.
Sunday: 11 A.M. to 7 P.M.
In addition to the employees providing security for the site, the Promenade Mall also provides
security staff for the mall, The applicant has indicated that the facility will also be monitored by a
24 hour recorded camera surveillance system.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
~1.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has
been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. (Class, 1;
Existing Facilities)
CONC LU 510 N/R ECO MIIII EN D A TIO N
Staff believes the required findings necessary to approve a facility renting computer time for the
use of word processing software and for internet use, including internet gaming, in the SP-7
(Temecula Regional CElnter) zoning district can be made. The project, as proposed and
conditioned, complies with all applicable development standards of the SP-7 zoning district.
Staff believes the proposed facility is compatible with the surrounding environment. The City
ordinance pertaining to curfew for minors will be in effect, and reasonable hours of operation
have been applied. No loitering will be permitted on-site, viewing of adult material is prohibited,
and adult supervision will be provided. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt a Hesolution approving the Planning Application PA03-0679 with the
attached conditions of approval.
FINDINGS
Conditional Use Permit (Code Section 17.040.010E)
1.
The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the development
code.
Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed conditional use permit is
consistent with Ihe City of Temecula General Plan and the applicable sections of the
Development Code because the proposed use is permitted in the SP-7 Zone with the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
R,IM C U P\2003\O3-0679 Cyber ZcnelST AFF REPORT,doc
2.
3.
The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development
of the adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will riot
adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
As conditioned, the facility renting computer time for the use of word processing software
and for internet use, including internet gaming, is compatible with the nature Jnd
condition of adjacent buildings because the project site and surrounding sites are zot,ed
SP-7 and the surrounding uses include retail shops, a coffee shop, restaurants and a
movie theater. The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent us'es,
buildings or structures because the building is existing and the proposed use is requifl ed
to maintain hours of operation to avoid adverse affects on the surrounding area.
The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommod~te
the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other
development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning
Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood.
I
The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking
and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features
prescribed in the Development Code and required by the Planning Commission in order
to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood because the proposed usJ is
within an existing building in an existing shopping center with all improvements including
yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and all ot~er
features as required in the Development Code and by Planning Commission. i
I
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety, and
welfare of the community. I
I
The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety Jnd
welfare of the community because the project provides a service of technology to the
community that is in demand and the conditions of approval include limited hours! of
operation and the viewing of adult material will not be permitted within the project site.
I
The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based on substantial
evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City
Council. !
I
The project has been reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicable codes 1ind
ordinance before the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENTS I
I
I
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
Plan Reductions - Blue Page 5
PC Resolution No. 2004-- - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval
Statement of Operation - Blue Page 7
RoW C U 1'\2003\03-0679 Cyber Zon.IST AFF REPORT.doc
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
.
PLAN REDUCTIONS
.
R:\M C U P\2003\Q34J679 Cyber ZonelST AFF REPORT.doc
~ O'}:;:"'~-:'~-'" ~.~~-
"'-~~:-~. c~~G~l
~ j-~. ¡ 11á~ i: ~ ~-
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - VICINITY MAP
CASE NO. - PA03-0679
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 7, 2004
R:\M C U P\2oo3\03.Q679 Cyber ZonelExhibits.doc
CASE NO. - PA03-0679
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - April 7, 2004
RIM C U Pl2003\O3-0679 Cyber ZonelExhibits.doc
.
.
-'
1&.1
>
W
..J
ø:
f.I1
¡;
9,
w
t-
Cñ
t-
o
W
""')
a
a:
D.
.'
...'
...
.
0.
«
::¡;
w
I-
iñ
I
W
I-
m
:E
x
w
~
0
°
N
...:
~
I
W
~
C
Z
",0
lOiñ
oC/)
~:Ë
o::¡;
«0
D¡o
ò~
~z
C/)Z
««
o~
D.
,0.
"""10.
Utility -,
Room ...
Ceramic Tile
Men
Women
EXHIBIT F - FLOOR PLAN
CyberZON E
Carpet
. . . . .
BB8BBOe
. . . . .
Carpet
.
.
. . . . .
R,<"',:n"",'~n,"',',,.",',D....'n,",'"""",,,..,'
LJ~~..' 'LJ
- ---'--- - --
DODD
. .. .
Ceramic Tile
. - . - - . . . . - - . . . - - - . - -
Front Entrance
CASE NO. - e,¡p3.0679
PLANNING ~ISSION DATE - April 7, 2004
.
0 Computer
Station
. Hi Back
Chair
Glass BlocI<'
Front Counters
.
.
.
.
~~~~.~ ~ ,--
]¡G'-
ATTACHMENT NO.2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
RolM C U P\2003\O3-0679 Cyber Zon"ISTAFF REPORTdoc
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
PA03-0679 A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE A 1,670 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY RENTING
COMPUTER TIME FOR THE USE OF WORD PROCESSING
SOFTWARE AND FOR INTERNET USE, INCLUDING
INTERNET GAMING, WITHIN THE PROMENADE MALL
LOCATED AT 40820 WINCHESTER ROAD, SUITE 1040,
KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 910-420-005.
WHEREAS, Mike Noll, representing CyberZONE, Inc., filed Planning Application No.
PA03-0679, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA03-0679 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. PA03-06/'9 on April 7, 2004, 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 hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA03-0679 subject to the
conditions after finding that the project proposed in Planning Application No. PA03-0679
conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
NOW, THEREFOFIE, 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.
Se6tion 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application
No. 03-0679 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) hereby makes the following findings as required by
Section 17.04.010.E and Section 17.05.010.F of the Temecula Municipal Code:
Conditional Use Permit (17.04.010E)
A, The propclsed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the
developn'l'ent code.
The Planning Ccmmission has reviewed the proposal and finds that the proposed
conditional use permit is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and the
applicable sections of the Development Code because the proposed use is permitted in
the SP-7 Zone wilh the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and
development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will
RolM C U P\2003\03.0679 Cyber Zon"IPC RESOLUTION AND DRAfT COA'S.dnc
I
not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures.
As conditioned, the facility renting computer time for the use of word processing softw4re
and for internet use, including internet gaming, is compatible with the nature ard
condition of adjacent buildings because the project site and surrounding sites are zoned
SP-7 and the surrounding uses include retail shops, a coffee shop, restaurants and a
movie theater. The proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent usJs,
buildings or structures because the building is existing and the proposed use is requi~i' d
to maintain hours of operation to avoid adverse affects on the surrounding area.
C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape Ito
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaPi¡g
and other development features prescribed in the Development Code and required by t e
Planning Commission or Council in order to integrate the use with other uses in t e
neighborhood.
The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parkl,ng
and loading facilities, buffer area, landscaping and other development features /
prescribed in the Development Code and required by the PI ' ning Commission in or~er
to integrate the use with other uses in the neighborhood be ause the proposed user is
within an existing building in an existing shopping center with all improvements includi,ng
yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer are landscaeing and all.o~
features as required in the Development Code and by Planning mIssion. / // i
D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health,
safety, and welfare of the community. i
I
The nature of the proposed conditional use permit is not detrimental to the health, safifty
and welfare of the community because the project provides a service of technology that
is in demand and the conditions of approval include limited hours of operation and the
viewing of adult material will not be permitted within the project site. I
I
E. The decision to conditionally approve the conditional use permit is based þn
substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole before the Planning Commission or City
Council. I
I
The project has been completely reviewed, as a whole, in reference to all applicaþle
codes and ordinances before the Planning Commission. :
I
Section 3. Enyironmental Compliance. The project is eligible for categori9al
exemption (Class 1 - Existing Facilities) pursuant to Section 15301 of the Califorl'1ia
Environmental Quality Act. I
I
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission here,by
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA03-0679 (Minor Conditional Use Permit) for
a 1,670 square foot facility renting computer time for the use of word processing software a,nd
for internet use, including internet gaming, within the Promenade Mall located at 40820
Winchester Road, Suite 1040, known as Assessor Parcel No. 910-420-005, subject to t,he
conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference together with any other conditions that may be deemed necessary. I
!
¡
I
!
R,IM C U P\2003\O3-0679 Cyber ZoneIPC RESOLUTION AND DRAFr COA'S.doc
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission thi:¡ y'h day of April 2004.
John Telesio, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDI::
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I Debbie Ubnosk,e, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. :~004-- was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of April, 2004, by the
following vote:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\M C U Pl2003\03-0679 Cyber ZOleIPC RESOLUTION AND DRAFT COA'S.doc
3
.
.
.
h ~~.
m~'~'~'" ~'
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RIM C U 1'\2003\03-0679 Cyber Zono:IPC RESOLUTION
c ,'.",~.~,",,-.._,
.
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA03-0679
Project DescripUDn:
A Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate a 1,670
square foot facility renting computer time for the use
of word processing software and for internet use,
including internet gaming, within the Promenade Mall
located at 40820 Winchester Road, Suite 1040.
DIF Category:
NA
910-420-005
Assessor's Parcl!l No:
Approval Date:
April 7, 2004
April 7, 2006
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMEI~T
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order
made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of sixty-four Dollars ($64.00) for the
County administre,tive fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Exemption as provided
under Public ReE,ources 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
1.
2.
The applicant ancl owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree
to indemnify, protl3ct, hold harmless, and defend the City with Legal Counsel of the City's
own selection from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, or proceedings
against the City to attack, set aside, annul, or 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. 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. City shall promptly notify
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 the right to take any and all action the City deems to be in the best interest
of the City and its citizens in regards to such defense.
R,IM C U 1'12003\03-0679 Cyber ZoneIPC RESOLUTION AND DRAFT COA'S.doc
5
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it s~all
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 dilige¡ltlY
pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by t is
approval.
All conditions shall be complied with prior to any occupancy or use allowed by t is
conditional use permit. I
This Conditional Use Permit may be revoked pursuant to Section 17.03.080.of the CitY's
Development Code. I
I
I
The permittee shall obtain City approval for any modifications or revisions to the
approval of this Conditional Use Permit. i
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibi F
(Floor Plan), contained on file with the Community Planning Department. I
The applicant shall comply with their Statement of Operations on file with the Planni:ng
Department unless superceded by these conditions of approval. :
I
I
.
The regular hours of operation shall be as follows:
Monday - Saturday: 10 AM. to 9:00 P.M.
Sunday: 11 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.
I
I
The applicant shall post at least three (3) "No Loitering" signs throughout the project ~ite
subject to approval by the Planning Director (Business and Profession Code 26501). !
I
At least three employees shall be provided on the premises during all hours of operati9n.
I
At least one adult employee (no less than 21 years of age) providing on-site supervisi'on
and security shall be provided on the premises during all hours of operation. I
I
The applicant shall maintain an interior waiting area for no less than five (5) customers~
I
I
The rear door shall be used for emergency purposes only and shall not be used for
customer exit/entrance privileges. I
I
I
I
The Temecula Police Department concurs with the requested hours of operation, ~as
indicated in the statement of operations. Any problems occurring on premises should be
referred to mall security. All criminal activities should be reported to the TemecÙla
Police mall security office. If no mall officers are present, contact central dispatch atl1-
800-950-2444. I
The sales and/or use of any alcoholic beverages on premises and surrounding area! of
responsibility is prohibited in accordance with City Ordinance 97-07, (9.14.010 TMC
æ~ !
I
I
I
I
.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
15.
16.
.
RIM C U NOO3\03-0679 Cybe, ZoneIPC RESOUITION AND DRAFT COA'S.doc
6
.
17.
18.
19.
The applicant shall ensure no loitering, disorderly house (Business and Profession Code
26501) occurs on or adjacent to its premises during hours of operation.
The applicant shall ensure juveniles are not exposed to any display of adult materials
and ensure this type of adult entertainment is not present on site per City Municipal
Code 9.04.020 TMC.
The applicant shall familiarize employees with City Municipal Code 9.12.010 TMC,
curfew for minors.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
20.
21.
22.
23.
.
24.
25.
26.
.
All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of the
California Buildin9. Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1998 National Electrical Code;
California Admini:3trative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and
the Temecula Mul1icipal Code.
Obtain all building plans and permit approvals prior to commencement of any
construction work. For any work proposed requiring a building permit.
All building and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations.
Provide all detail:; on plans. (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1,
1998) -
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001
edition of the California Building Code Appendix 29.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
prior to permit iss'Jance. As applicable.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mechanical plan for plan review for any improvements proposed. As
applicable.
Provide precise çlrading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons
with disabilities. As applicable.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
27.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when the Fire Prevention Bureau
reviews building plans. 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.
Provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC
8704.2 and 902.2..2)
28.
29.
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process and
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code
permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and
approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105)
R:IM C U 1'12003\03-0679 Cyber ZolleIPC RESOLUTtON AND DRAFT COA'S.doc
7
Any remodeling will require appropriate permits from the Fire and or Building
Departments. I
Regardless of proposed seating layout, or future proposals, the occupant load SH~LL
NOT exceed that allowed based on table 10-A of the CBC. I
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 I 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.
30.
31.
Applicant's Printed Name
Date
Applicant's Signature
RIM C U 1'\2003\O3.Q679 Cyber ZoneIPC RESOLUTION AND DRAFT COA'S.doc
8
.
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.3
.
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
.
R:IM C U P\2()()3\03~79 Cyber Zom,\ST AFF REPORT-doc "
~\~-r"'~-.::>o --
",...",',,"y, ,
.
.
.
Section H. Statement of Operations
CyberZONE, Inc.
The Promenade In Telmecula
40820 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA 92591
Hours of Operation (Mall hours)
Monday through Saturday lOam to 9 pm
Sunday 11 am to 7 pm
3 Employees
Parking in the Promemde Mall parking lot
Anticipate 30 to 40 customer visits per day
Equipment used: Computers, I popcorn machine
CyberZONE, Inc., makes available the rental of computer time for uses such as surfing
the Internet, email, Microsoft Office applications, and PC opIÚ)e gaming.
.}
-'.
...
"
.
ITEM #8
.
.
.
.
.
Date of Meeting:
Prepared by:
File Number
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
~17,2004
Don Hazen
Title:
Principal Planner
Application Type:
Development Plan
PA03-06i'7
Project Description:
Recommendation:
(Check One)
CECA:
(Check One)
IOevelopment Plan to construct two, two-story office buildings
itotaling 37,520 square feet on an undeveloped 3.2 acre site within
.the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan Area No. 34, located at the
:southeast corner of Pauba Road and Margarita Road
I~ Approve with Conditions
[] Deny
[J Continue for Redesign
[J Continue to:
[J Recommend Approval with Conditions
[J Recommend Denial
I~ Categorically Exempt
(Class)
32
[J Negative Declaration
[J Mitigated Negative Declaration with Monitoring Plan
[] EIR
R:ID 1'\2003\03-0677 Margarita Profe:siooat BuitdinglST AFF REPORT.doc
1
PROJECT DATA SUMMARY
.
Applicant:
Lalit Sawh
Mandatory Action Deadline Date:
4/30/04 (extended by mutual consent)
I
I
í
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
Completion Date:
11/20/03
General Plan Designation:
Low Medium
Zoning Designation:
SP-4 (Paloma del Sol, Planning Area 34)
Site/Surrounding Land Use:
Site:
Undeveloped
North:
South:
East:
West:
Undeveloped school property
Neighborhood Commercial
Single family residences
City park
Lot Area:
3.2 acres
Total Floor Area/Ratio
.27
.
Landscape Area/Coverage
42%
Parking Required/Provided
134 required/136 provided
BACKGROUND SUMMARY I
~ 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
and the applicant concurs with the recommended Conditions of Approval. I
I
~ I
D 1. Staff has worked with the applicant to ensure that all concerns have been addressed,
however, the following issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction to staff. I
I
I
I
I
!
I
.
R,m 1'12003\03-0677 Margarita Professiooat Building\ST AFF REPORT.doc
2
.
.
.
1Z12.
The application review has been completed and staff has determined that the proposed
project is consistent with the General Plan, City-wide Design Guidelines, the Paloma del
Sol Specific Plan, and the Development Code.
(or)
02.
The attached "Project Review Worksheef' (Attachment A) has been completed and
indicates that staff cannot make all the findings of consistency required for approval.
ANALYSIS
The staff analysis for thi8 application focused primarily on consistency with the Paloma del Sol
Specific Plan and the overall site design and building architecture.
The proposed use is consistent with the uses listed in Planning Area 34 of the Paloma del Sol
Specific Plan, which lists specific kinds of professional offices as permitted uses. The Director of
Planning has also determined that the range of permitted offices can be broadened to include
medical offices without creating inconsistencies with the Specific Plan, because the City
requirement for on-site parking is the same for all types of office uses (1 :300 sq.ft.).
The proposed site design does not show the Specific Plan-required landscaped transition buffer
to the east on HOA property (See Attachment 2, SP Figures 15HH and 13C). The purpose of the
buffer is to provide a visllJal buffer between the office site and the residences to the east. The
area requiring a buffer is. 50-foot wide and should include a pedestrian path as well. The City
Attorney has ruled that if the HOA does not consent to providing this buffer, then the applicant
will have to modify his site plan to show the buffer on his site in order for the Planning
Commission to find that the application is consistent with the Specific Plan.
At the time of this writing, staff had not received consent from the HOA to install the buffer, but
an update will be provided at the meeting. Staff has added a draft condition (#) that prior to
issuance of a grading permit, the HOA must either submit a detailed landscape buffer plan for
review and approval, or tile site plan must be revised to show the buffer on-site. If the HOA fails
to install the buffer, staff envisions a reduction in building size based on the loss of parking that
will occur, but does not believe subsequent Planning Commission review should be necessary.
The Specific Plan does not specify a minimum width of the buffer if it is not constructed in the
HOA area (which is 50-feet wide), but a width of 25-feet should be adequate if the buffer is
ultimately required to be planted on the subject site.
Staff finds that the propm:ed building architecture is consistent with the City's Design Guidelines,
the Paloma del Sol Design Guidelines, and the character of the nearby neighborhoods. The
Specific Plan lists "Spani:3h Eclectic" as a permitted architectural style and provides a list of the
identifying features to be included in that style (Pgs. IV-34, 35). The proposed building design
includes all required el,ements, including prominent arches above openings, divided light
windows, small round cupolas, decorative iron grilles, and varied roof forms. The plan also
shows a paseo and trellis gazebo extending across the site and between the buildings. Staff has
added a condition to havH a paseo detail plan submitted with the construction plans to verify the
exact details of construction, including paving details and furniture (Condition #).
R:ID 1'\2003\03-0677 Margarita Profe,sionaJ BnitdinglST AFF REPORT.doc
3
I
In order to develop the site as proposed, the applicant will grade the site to permit the building
pads to be as close to the front setbacks as permitted by the Specific Plan (25 feet). This work
will require low retaining walls (3-5 feet high) to be constructed at the corner and along Margarita
Road near the setback lines. The grading work will also necessitate removing a portion of he
meandering sidewalk along Margarita and realigning it to meander as close to the curb I as
permitted by the Specific Plan (5 feet). Trees removed as a part of the grading along the
Margarita parkway will be replaced with similar sized species. Staff has reviewed the landsc~pe
plan and finds that it conforms to the City's Development Code and complements the
development plan. I
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ¡
I
0 1. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed Project has
been deemed to be categorically exempt from further environmental review. (CI1SS,
name, type) I
I
i
t8J 1. The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with the preViO~SIY
approved EIR and is exempt from further Environmental Review (CEQA Section 15162
subsequent EIR's and Negative Declarations). I
!
I
I
¡
D 1. An initial study has been prepared and indicates that the project will have the fOIlO~ing
potential significant environmental impacts unless mitigation measures are included as
conditions of approval. Based on the following mitigations, staff recommends adoption
of the mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. I
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION r
r
(or)
(or)
Staff recommends adoption of a Resolution approving the application with the following findi~gS
and attached conditions of approval.
I
AN~NGS I
1.
I
I
I
I
The proposed project is consistent with the objectives and applicable provisions of It he
development code and Paloma del Sol Specific Plan in which the site is located. The
development plan for two office buildings totaling 37,520 square feet conforms withlthe
development regulations and architectural guidelines for Planning Area 34. I
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of low
Medium and implemented by Planning Area 34 of the Paloma del Sol Specific Plan. !
The proposed project together with the conditions applicable thereto will not I be
detrimental to the public health safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements I the vicinity. The project will be conditioned to install a landsc~pe
I
I
Development Plan (Code Section 17.05.010
2.
3.
R,ID 1'\2003\03.0677 Margarita Professionat Bnitding\STAFF REPORT.doc
4
.
.
.
.
.
.
transition buffer along the east side of the site to reduce impacts to the single family
neighborhood.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
Plan Reductions - I3lue Page 6
2.
PC Resolution No.:!004 -- Blue Page 7
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
R,ID 1'12003\03-0677 Margarita Protmjonal BuitdinglST AFF REPORT.doc
5
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT NO.1
PLAN REDUCTIONS
R:ID 1'12003\03-0677 Margarita Professionat BnildinglSTAFF REPORT. doc
6
;;;.,:'~~;;_æ:
-"
~-"
~ ~ >
-~~::=t;,~:-' ~ ~ -~~---~--~-~,.,.,., ~ ~ ~ : ~
3:g~O~ ~ ~ ~3lN3:)~\f==:':: d~~3~~~
.
i IIi @!'
I '"
! III
II: "',' ~.
; . . . .
i.. pn~
11' ~ H
!¡!
¡; ~ ¡i d!
I. ä Ilid
~
I !!
¡I,! ¡ I
¡i!! !.
,Ii:, ill
,U: I¡i
I I¡IIII-I
,hI II,
"- -.
. !
! i
~ !i
. ! I-
I ~:
I ~ . ¡
HI mmm ! ! :1'
.. ....... I ! I
""~"" ¡ , ,
ìì ì II
inn
!¡!Ù
.p~
~,
e "
! .
@ŒOWŒm
lill MAR 22 2004 ~
i i
! !
i i
i ¡
, '
l !
i I
a. i.-
; : ;: ~::
,
I "'I!
~"1; I
Ii 'Î Iii:
,i!!" 'il
mil !I!iii iii!
~ ~ 3'! I ! !! '.
",. I e.!-
Bv
z
j
~I
z'
F'
, zl
~ jl
ì 0...1
- >-!
£1:1
~¡
:::E'
:Ji
¡gl
0...1
I
,
i
i
I
I
I
I
i
¡
i
I
¡
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
1
I
I
i
I
1
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
¡
I
i
,
1
I
I
I
i
i
~11Ðc; ~"-"II~
~!)'. '!è\.~v-I
': """""""',"-""-"""" '
KtL"",~Hj.,l9O!""."""""""""-"""""",,
.L:)3JJH;>~y. 'Ad3NN:J)i NN:n~ '
I::
- . h:
- Cf!; " :. ~~
I . -I,. . '. ,OJ
, r".<'. ~¡Q.,' ,~l} ,
II !I' ,"', 'll 'i~\, -A: .
~, "..f'/ .~'" ' <: ~ .;¡, ," ~~ . I~
I ,J ., ..', ,," fhu,Jl
I J ~' ,¡j,t. " ..F"
}." , " j ", \~l' ~ 1bW~ "
, ~'§1 '" I§ I if1""'=ì' ,
,~.,'. /~-~ :,"v'. ~ 3,d.. ~
, ../, d ...., ",.'
II h ~ " ,.41' . f~ I i ,h hhc ,~
ð" ,..~ ftlI~ l 1 'HO+Z11 .
I . /, ~ $~ ~t >0 ~fl~;!ft ~
< " ",: '.1 "~".,'. '" ,',IÎW'I,'~t",! . h ~~¡ "",~,'~,';,i,',,,i..,~ ~, >
" :/ ~~~¡. et"J'~tt-. u
"". !! t-:,:j~.,t¡j ~~:~~h~,~,l it
. '. {i,7ffbl. fAHth. 'if
1¡ ~ h~'nhßJlHilh!ill~6~lh
(1\' """'/ .... ~ , , '" ",',"', j
'-J-'!f 'ì~ "'--"f"\
~ it I ~¡-~. ~!;{
hi if !~~,I .!.tl ~ï
. !' ~:¡-. ~.
Ii 1 Ii!! ¡,H r &{ n
-~U nIJ it!) i1 lu ii
.
.
.
.
~ I
g ",oj ~
~" ,.¡~ ~ ~-~
" ~ - ¡i!!¡~! ~ ~~
~" 'Hi~.»~. g~
. ~ ~ ~5~¡' H~ ~ ~~
"I ~ ~ ¡I~!I ~ . :.. ~ ~~
; ~ i ¡¡iin!I!""! ~I
~ ~ !.§I;~ ~ òæ .
,
,~
-it
~
II i I
i i i
I ¡' f
1.-?~':::JC: Q -¡~=I~-;;J.-----.J.J
"'~,I^ '1ll,,~;>'1...--;
'f
,
h@
~H¡;r~
.11
H.
111
t.'
w
¡~~
'1t"
!~:t '
~~~
"'r"'" r. ,r/
>." f v
. ~~ I
-"'~d¿.
, ~. 51)
~' ".fl.. ¡;',. }
f.d <,~
~.~ j~ '
1 i
,
~
h
,1Î
b~
~
h
:iì"'
12
~r.
. ¡
}: ~
.
.
.
"",_.""""_.,,,...,",,"'"
"""""'Is",.."""""."""""""",.""""",,,,,.....,,,
.L:);WH:)~\f 'A03NN3>1 NN31Ð '
~~r>""~-»"H, ~ J ~
"~b.~ <]t ~j ~~¡
. IV) 5 r' ¡ì~
¡ l j'.( 1!~í1 n
Y/'# f :tJ~ -.
,. I;;. "i ~
~ 1 ~
~ .
.
~a;lr<:::;l ""'f"=IÇ<.,"J-~.J
;;~,I/'. "<'j.h!~"¡"""'"
i
tbj:.~~
¥U!tp h :,:
~ 0- , .J HI
,0',"<
~
í
!
it;
ti~i
~1
5
:F,-
~
:<
-¡
~\ II}
i: ~ "
.~ "I t~~
L '. '\1'.
1£ ~, ¡. ,
1'~ t. \
I!' ¡l
J '1.;,
¡t d;
, 'i;:-'
~)
j ~ l>
I
I e
I ,f~!
¡ "tï'
~J z¡:
~~.--¡ ',¡
~~, I j,
'-LJ .:
~~r .' i
~! f¡
~l ~:1
, n
.it
.
'rl
~'f
i-
_I~ .
1~ -1
I ~ "
j A ,c- -~
I, If I -
~)
~'h
.-;'~'
:.--:, """--"O:;¡ ,,'..--..ÞI4'-""¡""""'"
""I-:> --,.."-,,, ~"~4"'~'~
.)
~
fie
':0
""'....~'::=;;,~-:.:::'~~"""",.,
P3JJH~'v'~^â3NN3>t NN31Ð .
-.-
", ."'I'¡~
, IL ,;
". II
..~ ~
1
~1
o! ~
i f¡
= ,-',
J
t
i
.
j
.
l'
..
~i
11
e~
f~
~li
11,
t°L-
I~t
~'I-.
~i
':1;
~fÏ
. ~.r
ha
.
.
.
.
.
1Of.'¿¡1,n=< Î'i'\---<'I<,,<" 3J--,,1.I
;;~1-,¡F"V.hI""'-?'¡"I~
"""_.""""_.",..."",,,,,
""-~",."""",-...""".>"""""".....,,,
O;J1IH3è!Y . A03NN3>I NN31S1. .
.~.'"
("-{]
r'1
. ~,i
i ~.;
i
,
,
-.
H
11
,
,¡
~
i
",
-.
¡I~ .
1 ,
, ~
AT'
It
~
J
IL
-"h>='I<,c,.;¡,J....,¡,J
;'-~fJ~-,If1'; 't "'¡<on"d-,d",-L-
.~111^ ~'
-..."'" '"
- ~l'f'" .~":=¿f. '~~~;Ni'N~5 .
.I,:)3lIHJ~Y . .
~ ;
~ ~
a
r
~
~j.
~H
\1',
In:
.~~I
\-¡t.,
þ'¡
H
, I
..J.
.
.
.
C?\.J<::>-'r.~ -."'--'<';7'7;""'..,1;
¡;;:.--.v.,-,/' ..,.,,¡-.I"""'..;'7V^!
.
!
h
,1
: J~
~ I>
~, 1-
"l'-J t--J)
I ,1-"
I d-r'
(J --
u 9
î
.
i .
elf--" I
'-.
: ", '., _i /
'. L . . -~ "
-,'/',,If -",- /,,1
~~:. '"" / /'
, '. -'.' - ..
i ' \ \' ',,:\ ~
+ - -T-'~",~1 . \ Ì'.; '\ :
, wV' I,' Ii r , -r+
,,~ I --->-t -
I" .! -ft
~, i'
U--7"'-~
: I' .
II /'
¡~
[t-
ill/
I ,', "-
"---f----
.
"""_._",_.",-"",,..
OStl-fJOC 16";."","'10 '""""""". """""""""",,",, '"
D31IHJ~'v".^å3NN3)i NN31Ð.
~
Q
T
~
ll-
l
~
¡
§"
5\
It"
~~)
~ ~
.
ATTACHMENT NO.2
.
PC RESOLUTION NO.2004-
.
R,\D l'\2oo3\O3-û677 Margarita Profi:ssiooat BuitdinglST AFF REPORT.doc
7
:,:."':.~;ti'4H-" ~~~<",c""""=.""""",,,,
-""""',
i
l"'...~""!IIIIÌÍ¡' ","
.
.
.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2004--
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA03-0677, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO CONSTRUCT,
ESTABLISH AND OPERATE TWO, TWO-STORY
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 37,520
SQUARE FEET ON 3.2 ACRES. THE SITE IS GENERALLY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PAUBA ROAD
AND MAFIGARITA ROAD, ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSORS
PARCEL 1m. 955-150-027.
WHEREAS, Lalit Sawh filed Planning Application No. PA03-0677, a Development Plan
Application, in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development
Code;
WHEREAS, the Application 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 the Application
on April 7, 2004, 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 hearing and after due consideration of
the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based
upon the findings set forth hereunder;
WHEREAS, allleqal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
The above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinas. The Planning Commission, in approving the Application hereby
makes the following finclings as required by Section 17.05.010F of the Temecula Municipal
Code:
Development Plan (Section 17.05.010F)
A. The propclsed use is consistent with the objectives and applicable provisions of
the development code and Paloma del Sol Specific Plan in which the site is located.
The developmeni: plan as conditioned, is consistent with the objectives and applicable
provisions of the development code, Planning Area 34 of the Paloma del Sol Specific
Plan, and the City-Wide Design Guidelines. Moreover, the plan, as conditioned,
incorporates arctdtectural and landscape designs, which will achieve the City's General
Plan Community Design Goal #3, "Preservation and enhancement of the positive
qualities of individual districts or neighborhoods ':
R:\D 1'\2003\03-0677 Margarita ProffSsionat BuitdingIPC RESOLUTION.doc
1
B. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of
Low Medium and as implemented by Planning Area 34 of the Paloma del Sol Specific Pltn,
which permits professional offices.
C. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety, and general welfare. I
The project has been conditioned to install a landscape transition buffer along the ~ast
side of the site to reduce impacts to the single family neighborhood to the east. I
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The application is consistent with the I"nd
use scenario used to identify impacts and mitigations outlined in the certified Paloma del Sol
Specific Plan EIR on file in the Planning Department office, and required mitigations have bElen
incorporated in the conditions of approval. The environmental setting has not changed
significantly and the project is exempt from further environmental review in accordance 1, ith
Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves the Application, a request to develop two, two-story professional offièe
buildings totaling 37,520 square feet set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated
herein by this reference together with any and all necessary conditions that may be deerr)ed
necessary. i
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning
Commission this 7h day of April 2004. I
l
I
I
I
ATTEST:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\D NOO3\O3.0677 Margarita Professionat BuitdingIPC RESOLUTION.doc
2
John Telesio, Chairperson
.
.
.
.
.
.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Debbie Ubnosk,e, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2004-- was duly and regularly adopted b~ the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7' day of April 2004, by t~e
following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
PLII,NNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLII,NNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
PLII,NNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:ID 1'\2003\03-0677 Margarita Professiooal BuitdingIPC RESOLUTION.doc
3
..
.
.
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R,\D l'I2oo3\Q3-0677 Margarita Prof"ssiooat BuitdinglST AFF REPORT.doc
8
"",,,""'V_~-
-"-----..~.'
... _...-.
~_....'
~..
.. ~~-~
.
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA03-0677
Project Descripti,on:
A Development Plan to construct, establish and
operate two, two-story professional office
buildings totaling 37,520 square feet on an
undeveloped 3.2 acre site within the Paloma del
Sol Specific Plan Area No. 34, located at the
southeast corner of Pauba Road and Margarita
Road.
DIF Category: Per the DA
TUMF Category: Service
Assessor Parcel No.: 955-150-027
Approval Date: April 7, 2004
Expiration Date: April 7, 2006
. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
.
Within Forty-Eight (48) l-fours of the Approval of this Project
1.
The applicant shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order
made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Sixty-Four Dollars ($64.00) 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. II 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
2.
The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, defend with counsel of City's own election, and
hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its
officers, employeBs, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against
the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and
agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an
approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal
board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning
the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of
limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et
seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City
R,ID 1'12003\03-0677 Margarita Professional BoitdingIPC COA'S.doc
,""" prom~'y oo,"y tho p,,"""o,,""" 01 MY <'"m, ""'"' " pro",",,", brol
forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action
and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additi°ral
deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused
portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to
either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be
responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
3.
This approval shall be used by the Expiration Date noted above; otherwise, it s~all
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval, which is thereafter diligently pursued to comPletion, or
the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
The development of the premises shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit '¡O"
(Site Plan), contained on file with the Planning Department Additionally, the following
criteria must be met prior to development of the project: I
a. All ground mounted utility/mechanical equipment shall be located such that t~ey
are not placed in prominent locations visible to the public. I
b. Provide the Planning Department with a copy of the underground water pl~ns
and electrical plans for verification of acceptable placement of the transformer
and the double detector check prior to final agreement with the utility companie~.
I
Any outside wall-mounted lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine
directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All parking lot lights and other
exterior lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department I of
Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements! of
the Mt. Palomar lighting ordinance. I
Building elevations shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "E" (Building
Elevations), contained on file with the Planning Department. All mechanical and robf-
mounted equipment shall be hidden by building elements that were designed for t~at
purpose as an integral part of the building. I
a. Landscaping shall substantially conform to the approved Exhibit "P' (Landscape
Plan). Landscaping installed for the project shall be continuously maintainedlto ,
the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning. If it is detenmined that the
landscaping is not being maintained, the Director of Planning shall have the
authority to require the property owner to bring the landscaping into cònformanbe
with the approved landscape plan. The continued maintenance of alilandscap!ed
areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or any successors in interest. I
b. All Plum and Pepper trees removed along Margarita Road shall be replaced Wr'th
similar-sized trees, but no less than 24-inch box, whichever is larger.
The colors and materials for this project shall substantially conform to the following list! of
approved colors and materials and with the Color and Material Board contained on file
with the Community Development Department - Planning Division. Any deviation frdm
the approved colors and materials shall require approval of the Director of Planning. i
I
4.
5.
6.
7.
R:\D 1'\2003\03-0677 Margarita Professional BuitdingIPC COA'S.doc
.
.
.
.
.
.
a.
The exterior stucco shall be of a '1ine-sand" finish to give a smooth appearance
as viewed from the street (as shown on the material board exhibit). Prior to
painting the building, the applicant shall paint a minimum 3-foot by 3-foot square
on the building wall for final staff approval.
The wood trim color shall be modified to be more of a brown-wood shade,
subject to staff review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
A Paseo Detail sheet shall be included with the submitted construction plans to
show all hardscape detailing, landscape plantings, lampposts, and furniture
acceSSOriE!s.
The acce~;s driveways shall include decorative stamped concrete to match the
architectural theme of the buildings.
b.
c.
d.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved
Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
8.
9.
10.
The applicant shall sign both copies of the final conditions of approval that will be
provided by the Community Development Department - Planning Division staff, and
return one signed set to the Community Development Department - Planning Division for
their files.
The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division for permanent filing two (2) 8" X 10" glossy photographic color prints of the
approved Color and Materials Board and of the colored version of approved Exhibit "E",
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.
11.
The City shall have received and approved a landscape plan and installation bond from
the Paloma del Sol Homeowner's Association showing the transitional landscape buffer
on their property to the east, or the applicant shall submit and have approved, a Minor
Modification application showing a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along the east property
line of the subject site.
Prior to the Issuance 01' Building Permits
12.
A Consistency Check fee shall be paid per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule.
13.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Department - Planning Division. These plans
shall conform substantially with the approved Exhibit "H1" and "H2," 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
plans shall be acGompanied by the following items:
a. Appropria'¡e filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of
submittal).
One (1) copy of the approved grading plan.
b.
R:ID 1'\2003\03-0677 Margarita Proft.ssionaJ BlildinglPC COA'S.doc
c.
Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Wa er
Efficient Ordinance).
Total cost estimate of plantings and irrigation (in accordance with the approv d
plan).
.
d.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed consistent w th
the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of
Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. T e
irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. I
The transitional landscape buffer if required on site, shall be planted and in healthy
~~ I
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, ¡to
guarantee the maintenance of the plantings, in accordance with the approvþd
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 Director of Planning, the bond shall be
released. I
I
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit. I
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
14.
15.
16.
17.
.
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to ahy
Government Agency. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the site plan \111
existing and proposed property lines, easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints ahd
drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for furtHer
review and revision. I
I
I
General Requirements
18.
19.
20.
21.
A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all on-site flat work and improvements, i
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any:
construction outside of the City-maintained street right-of-way. ,
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works priorlto
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
All grading plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existihg
improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24' x 36' Citylof
Temecula mylars.
~he Developer shall construct 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: drive approach, storm
drain facilities, sewer, and domestic water systems. I
.
R,ID 1'\2003\03-0677 Margarita Professional BuitdingIPC COA'S.doc
.
.
.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed
and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
A Soil Report shall be prepared by a registered Soil or Civil Engineer and submitted to
the Director of the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
As deemed necessary by the Director of the Department of Public Works, the Developer
shall receive writt,en clearance from the following agepcies:
a. San Diegel Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
e. Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
The Developer shaU comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for off-
site work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public
Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's
check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area
drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already
been credited to this property, no new charge needs"to be paid.
Prior to Issuance of a Eluilding Permit
30.
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:
R,ID 1'\2003\03.0677 Margarita Prof"ssional BuitdingIPC COA'S.doc
I
\
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
AC. paving. I
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of T emecula Standard No. 207 A.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. I
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections ard
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. I
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil or Tra~ic
Engineer and reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works for any street
closure and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Departmønt
of Public Works. I
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. I
I
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee ~s
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code arl d
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
The Developer shall pay to the. City the Western Riverside County Transportatibn
Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program as required by, and in accordance with,
Chapter 15.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementihg
Chapter 15.08. ¡
I
I
I
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall recei~e
written clearance from the following agencies: I
a. Rancho California Water District I
b. Eastern Municipal Water District I
c. Department of Public Works I
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. I
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or brok!6n
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of the
Department of Public Works. I
BUILDING DEPARTMENT I
38. All design components shall comply with applicable provisions of the 2001 edition of t~e
California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 2001 California Electrical Code;
California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy Code, California Title 24 Disabl~d
Access Regulations, and the Temecula Municipal Code.
a.
b.
c.
d.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
35.
36.
37.
R:ID 1'12003\03-0677 M",garita Professional BuilwoglPC COA'S.doc
.
.
.
.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
. 45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
. 53.
The City of Teme,~ula has adopted an ordinance to collect fees for a Riverside County
area wide Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Upon the adoption of this
ordinance on Man:h 31, 2003, this project will be subject to payment of these fees at the
time of building permit issuance. The fees shall be subject to the provisions of Ordinance
03-01 and the fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance.
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 ~;hall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of
Building and Safely. 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,
Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
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 disabled access from the public way to the main entrance of the building.
Provide van accessible parking located as close as possible to the main entry. Also
provide adequate number of spaces for parking in medical buildings as set forth in
California Buildinø Code Table 11 B-6.
Provide house elElctrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting,
fire alarm system:;.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, to be in accordance with the provisions of the 2001
edition of the CalHornia Building Code Appendix 29.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
prior to permit issuance.
Provide electrical plan including load calculations and panel schedule, plumbing
schematic and mBchanical 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 ~Irading plan at plan check submittal to check accessibility for persons
with disabilities. .
A pre-construction meeting is required with the building inspector prior to the start of the
building construction.
Ro\D 1'\2003\03-0677 Margarita Prof..siooal BuildinglPC COA'S.doc
Trash enclosures, patio covers, light standards, and any block walls if not on the
approved building plans, will require separate approvals and pemnits. II
Show all building setbacks.
Signage shall be posted conspicuously at the entrance to the project that indicates the
hours of construction, shown below, as allowed by the City of Temecula Ordinance ~o.
94-21, specifically Section G (1) of Riverside County Ordinance No. 457.73, for any site
within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. I
Monday-Friday 6:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m. I'
Saturday 7.00 a.m. - 6.30 p.m.
No work is permitted on Sunday or Government Holidays l
FIRE DEPARTMENT
I Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by t e
Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the Califorli'ia
Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at t~e
time of building plan submittal. I
57. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel lor
construction of all commercial buildings per CFC Appendix liLA, Table A-III-A-1. T~e
developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1875 G~M
at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, plus an assumed sprinkler demand of 400 G~M
for a total fire flow of 2275 GPM with a 3 hour duration. The required fire flow may De
adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type,lor
automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire
Flow as given above has taken into account all information as proYided. (CFC 903~2,
Appendix III-A) ;
I
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix III-B, Table A-III-B-1. A minimum of 2 hydrants, in a combination of on-site ahd
off-site (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads ard
adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 450 feet apart, at each intersectipn
and shall be located no more than 225 feet from any point on the street or Fire
Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall þe
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 III-B) i
As required by the California Fire Code, when any portion of the facility is in excesslof
150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route
around the exterior of the facility, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplyipg
the required fire flow shall be provided. For this project on site fire hydrants are
required. (CFC 903.2) I
I
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 permanønt
54.
55.
56.
58.
59.
60.
61.
R:\D 1'\2003\03-0677 Margarita Professional BuitdingIPC CQA'S.doc
.
.
.
.
.
.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
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 soc 902)
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) foet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
Prior to building construction, dead end road ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feEit which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4)
Prior to building construction, this development shall have two (2) points of access, via
all-weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1)
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)
Prior to issuancl6 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, approved numbers or
addresses shall be provided on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible ancllegible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall be
of a contrasting color to their background. Commercial, multi-family residential and
industrial buildinqs shall have a minimum twelve (12) inches numbers with suite
numbers a minimum of six (6) inches in size. All suites shall gave a minimum of six (6)
inch high letters and/or numbers on both the front and rear doors. Single family
residences and multi-family residential units shall have four (4) inch letters and lor
numbers, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 901.4.4)
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on square footage
and type of com:truction, 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 Iinstallation. (CFC Article 10, CBC Chapter 9)
69.
70.
Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or building final, based on a requirement
for monitoring tho sprinkler system, occupancy or use, the developer shall install an fire
alarm system monitored by an approved Underwriters Laboratory listed central station.
R:ID 1'\2003\03-0677 Margarita Prof"ssional BuildinglPC COA'S.doc
Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation.
(CFC Article 10) I
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 fire sprinkler riser door. (CFC 902.4) j
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or ga es
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Ra~id
entry system for emergency access by fire fighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) I
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire
Department for approval, a site plan designating Fire Lanes with appropriate lahe
painting and or signs. I
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, the
developer/applicant shall be responsible for obtaining underground and/or abovegrouhd
tank permits for the storage of combustible liquids, flammable liquids or any ot~er
hazardous materials from both the County Health department and Fire Preventipn
Bureau.(CFC 7901.3 and 8001.3) I
Special Conditions
I
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final a simple plot plan ancj a
simple floor plan, each as an electronic file of the .DWG format must be submitted to tre
Fire Prevention Bureau. Alternative file formats may be acceptable, contact fire
prevention for approval. i
I
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Code permit process ahd
update any changes in the items and quantities approved as part of their Fire Code
permit. These changes shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and
approval per the Fire Code and is subject to inspection. (CFC 105) I
The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Riverside County DepartmJnt
of Environmental Health and City Fire Department an update to the Hazardous Material
Inventory Statement and Fire Department Technical Report on file at the city; should ahy
quantities used or stored onsite increase or should changes to operation introduce ally
additional hazardous material not listed in existing reports. (CFC Appendix II-E) 'I'
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
I
Any damage done to the existing multi-use trail along Pauba Road and the Class II bike
lane along Pauba and Margarita Roads shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Pu~lic
Works and Community Services Departments. I
The trash enclosures shall be large enough to accommodate a recycling bin, as well as,
regular solid waste containers. !
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
General Conditions
I
78.
79.
R,\D P\2003\O3-0677 Margarita Pwfessional BnildinglPC COA'S.doc
10
.
.
.
.
.
.
80.
The developer shall contact the City's franchised solid waste hauler for disposal of
construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris.
81.
All landscaping including areas within the ROW, open space areas, fencing, and on site
lighting shall be maintained by the property owner or an established maintenance
association.
Prior to Building Permit
82.
If additional arterial streetlights are to be installed on Pauba and Margarita Roads as a
result of this projuct then prior to building permit or installation of streetlights, whichever
occurs first, the developer shall submit a streetlight application form, approved Edison
streetlight plans and pay the appropriate streetlight advanced energy fees.
The developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's
franchise solid W8.ste hauler for disposal of construction debris.
83.
OTHER AGENCIES
84.
The applicant she,ll comply with the recommendations set forth in the Metropolitan Water
District letter dated December 17, 2003.
85.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Department of Environmental Health letter dated November 26, 2003.
86.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Water
District letter dated December 1 , 2003]
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
Applicant's Printed Namu
R¡ID 1'12003\03-0677 Margarita Prof<lssiooat BuitdingIPC COA'S.doc
II
OJJ
Executive Office
)
I
~Œ@ŒOill W
lill DEC 2 3 2003 W
By ~
.
MWD
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
MWD San Diego Pipeline No.3
Sta. 1478+00 to 1488+00
Substr. Job No. 2029-03-009
December 17, 2003
Ms. Sheila Powers
City of Temecula
Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Ms. Powers:
Margarita Professional Building - Site Development
.
Thank you for your project transmittal dated December 1,2003, and a site plan
for the proposed property development at the southeast comer ofPauba Road and
Margarita Road in the city of Temecula.
As shown on the enclosed map, our 75-inch-inside-diameter San Diego Pipeline
No.3 and 50-foot-wide easement right-of-way are located just east of the
proposed project location.
Weare transmitting a copy of our "Guidelines for Development in the Area of
Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of The Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California" and prints of our Drawings B-13768 and B-13769 and
Right-of-Way Map SDA-P-4.
We request that our facilities and right-of-way be fully shown and identified as
Metropolitan's on any pertinent project plans and that prints of these plans be
submitted for our review and written approval as they pertain to our facilities.
All applicable portions of the enclosed guidelines should be incorporated into
the project plans.
We request that a stipulation be added to any pertinent project plans and
specifications to notify Mr. John Martinez at our Water System Operations
.
700 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. Mailing Address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, California 90054-0153. Telephone (2r 217-6000
.
.
.
THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
Ms. Shelia Powers
Page 2
December 17, 200:3
Group, telephone (909) 776-2616, at least two working days prior to starting any
work in the vicinity of our facilities.
For any further conespondence with Metropolitan relating to this project, please
make reference to the Substructures Job Number located in the upper right-hand
comer of this letteL Should you require any additional information, please
contact Ms. Kathy Meyer at (213) 217-7663.
&~Iol <;uwl
Very truly yours,
ð~nl. W~
Susan M. Walters
Senior Engineering Technician
Substructures Team
SMW!KM/ly
DOC 2029-03-009
Enclosures (5)
.
.
.
Guidelines for Developments in the
Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements
-of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
1.
Introduction
a. The following general guidelines should be
followed for the design of proposed facilities and
developments in the area of Metropolitan's facilities, fee
properties, and/or easements.
b. We require that 3 copies of your tentative and
final record maps, grading, paving, street improvement,
landscape, storm drain, and utility plans be submitted
for our review and written approval as they pertain to
Metropolitan's facilities, fee properties and/or
easements, prior to the commencement of any construction
work.
2.
Plans, Parcel and Tract Maps
The following are Metropolitan's requirements for the
identification of its facilities, fee properties, and/or
easements on your plans, parcel maps and tract maps:
a. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements and
its pipelines and other facilities must be fully shown and
identified as Metropolitan's on all applicable plans.
b. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements
must be shown and identified as Metropolitan's with the
official recording data on all applicable parcel and
tract maps.
c. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements
and existing survey monuments must be dimensionally tied
to the parcel or tract boundaries.
d. Met.ropolitan' s records of surveys must be
referenced OIl the parcel and tract maps.
- 2 -
3.
Maintenance of Access Along Metropolitan's Rights-of-Way
a. Proposed cut or fill slopes exceeding 10 percent
are normally not allowed within Metropolitan's fee
properties or easements. This is required to facilitate the
use of construction and maintenance equipment, and provide I
access to its aboveground and belowground facilities.
I
b. We require that 16-foot-wide commercial-type
driveway approaches be constructed on both sides of all
streets crossing Metropolitan's rights-of-way. Openings
are required in any median island. Access ramps, if
necessary, must be at least 16-feet-wide. Grades of ramps¡
are normally not allowed to exceed 10 percent. If the slope
of an access ramp must exceed 10 percent due to the I
topography, the ramp must be paved. We require a
40-foot-1ong level area on the driveway approach to access
ramps where the ramp meets the street. At Metropolitan's I
fee properties, we may require fences and gates. 'I'
c. The terms of Metropolitan's permanent easement
deeds normally preclude the building or maintenance of I
structures of any nature or kind within its easements, to '
ensure safety and avoid interference with operation and i
maintenance of Metropolitan's pipelines or other facilities.
Metropolitan must have vehicular access along the easement~
at all times for inspection, patrolling, and for maintenan6e
of the pipelines and other. facilities on a routine basis. i
We require a 20-foot-wide clear zone around all above-grou~d
facilities for this routine access. This clear zone should
slope away from our facility on a grade not to exceed!
2 percent. We must also have access along the easements'
with construction equipment. An example of this is shown <!In
Figure 1. i
. ¡
,d. The footings of any proposed buildings adjacent ~o
Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must not
encroach into the fee property or easement or impose
additional loading on Metropolitan's pipelines or other
facilities therein. A typical situation is shown on
Figure 2. Prints of the detail plans of the footings for
any building or structure adjacent to the fee property or I
easement must be submitted for our review and written
approval as they pertain to the pipeline or other facilities
therein. Also, roof eaves of buildings adjacent to the I
easement or fee property must not overhang into the fee
property or easement area. I
.
.
.
.
.
.
4.
- 3 -
e. Metropolitan's pipelines and other facilities,
e. g. structurE!S, manho1.es, equipment, survey monuments, etc.
within its feE! properties and/or easements must be protected
from damage by the easement holder on Metropolitan's
property or tile property owner where Metropolitan has an
easement, at 110 expense to Metropolitan. If the facility is
a cathodic protection station it shall be located prior to
any grading OJ~ excavation. The exact location, description
and way of protection shall be shown on the related plans.
for the eaSemE!I1t area.
Easements on Uetropolitan's Property
a. We E!I1courage the use of Metropolitan's fee rights-
of-way by govE!rnmental agencies for public street and
utili ty purpo!;es, provided that such use does not interfere
with Metropolitan's use of the property, the entire width of
the property :Ls accepted into the agency's public street
system and fair market value is paid for such use of the
right-of-way.
b. Please contact the Director of Metropolitan's
Right of Way and Land Division, telephone (213) 250-6302,
concerning eaBements for landscaping, street, storm drain,
sewer, water (Jr other public facilities proposed wi thin
Metropolitan'l; fee properties. A map and legal description
of the reques1:ed easements must be submitted. Also, written
evidence must be submitted that shows the city or county
will accept tile easement' for the specific purposes into its
public system. The grant of the easement will be subject to
Metropoli tan'!; rights to use its land for water pipelines
and related purposes to the same ~xtent as if such grant had
not been made. There will be a charge for the easement.
Please note that, if entry is required on the property prior
to issuance of the easement, an entry permit must be
obtained. Th'~re will also be a charge for the entry perIni t.
5.
Landscapinq
Metropolitan's landscape guidelines for its fee
properties an,i/ or easements are as follows:
a. A g.t'een belt may be allowed wi thin Metropolitan's
fee property ,:¡r easement.
b. All landscape plans shall show the location and
size of Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement and the
location and size of Metropolitan's pipeline or other
facilities therein.
6.
- 4-
c. Absolutely no trees will be allowed within 15 feJt
of the centerline of Metropolitan's existing or future
pipelines and facilities. .
.
d. Deep-rooted trees are prohibited within
Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements. Shal1ow-
rooted trees are the only trees allowed. The shallow-roote~
trees will not be permitted any closer than 15 feet from th~
centerline of the pipeline, and such trees shall not be I
taller than 25 feet with a root spread no greater than i
20 feet in diameter at maturity. Shrubs, bushes, vines, and
ground cover are permitted, but larger shrubs and bushes I
should not be planted directly over our pipeline. Turf is I
acceptable. We require submittal of landscape plans for I
Metropolitan's prior review and written approval. (See I
Figure 31.
e.. The landscape plans must contain provisions for
Metropolitan's vehicular access at all times along its'
rights-of-way to its pipelines or facilities therein.
Gates capable of accepting Metropolitan's locks are
required in any fences across its rights-of-way. Also,
any walks or drainage facilities across its access route
must be constructed to AASHTO H-20 loading standards.
.
f. Rights to landscape any of Metropolitan's fee
properties must be acquired from its Right of Way and
Land Division. Appropriate entry permits must be obtained i
prior to any entry on its property. There will be a Charger.
for any entry permit or easements required.
I
I
Fencing
Metropolitan requires that perimeter fencing of its fee
properties and facilities be constructed of universal chain:
link, 6 feet in height and topped with 3 strands of barbed i
wire angled upward and outward at a 45 degree angle or an I
approved equal for a total fence height of 7 feet. Suitable
substitute fencing may be considered by Metropolitan. I
(Please see Figure 5 for detai1sl.
7.
Utilities in Metropolitan's Fee Properties and/or Easements;
or Adjacent to Its Pipeline in Public Streets I
Metropolitan's policy for the alinement of utilities
permitted within its fee properties and/or easements and
street rights-of-way is as follows:
.
- 5 -
.
a. Pen1anent structures, including catch basins,
manholes, power poles, telephone riser boxes, etc., shall
not be located within its fee properties and/or easements.
b. We request that permanent utility structures
within public streets, in which Metropolitan's facilities
are constructed under the Metropolitan Water District
Act, be placed as far from our pipeline as possible, but
not closer thëLn 5 feet from the outside of our pipeline.
c. The installation of utilities over or under
Metropolitan'!; pipeline(s) must be in accordance with the
requirements !¡hown on the enclosed prints of Drawings
Nos. C-11632 élnd C-9547. Whenever possible we request a
minimum of one! foot clearance between Metropolitan's pipe
and your facility. Temporary support of Metropolitan's
pipe may also be required at undercrossings of its pipe
in an open trench. The temporary support plans must be
reviewed and élpproved by Metropolitan.
.
d. LatE!ral utility crossings of Metropolitan's
pipelines mus1: be as perpendicular to its pipeline
alinement as practical. Prior to any excavation our
pipeline shall be located manually and any excavation
within two feet of our pipeline must be done by hand.
This shall be noted on the appropriate drawings.
e. Utilities constructed longitudinally within
Metropolitan's rights-of-way must be located outside the
theoretical trench prism' for uncovering its pipeline and
must be locatE!d parallel to and as close to its rights-
of-way lines ëtS practical.
f. When piping is jacked or installed in jacked
casing or tuIDlel under Metropolitan's pipe, there must be
at least two j:eet of vertical clearance between the
bottom of Met]:opolitan' s pipe and the top of the jacked
pipe, jacked (:asing or tunnel. We also require that
detail drawin~,s of the shoring for the jacking or
tunneling pit!; be submitted for our review and approval.
Provisions mU!;t be made to grout any voids around the
exterior of ele jacked pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. If
the piping is installed in a jacked casing or tunnel the
annular space between the piping and the jacked casing or
tunnel must bl! filled with grout.
.
- 6 -
.
g. OVerhead electrical and telephone line
requirements:
1) Conductor clearances are to conform to the
California State Public Utilities Commission, General
Order 95, for OVerhead Electrical Line Construction or
at a greater clearance if required by Metropolitan. I
Under no circumstances shall clearance be less than
35 feet. I
2) A marker must be attached to the power polel
showing the ground clearance and line voltage, to hel
prevent damage to your facilities during maintenance or
other work being done in the area. I
3) Line clearance over Metropolitan's fee
properties and/or easements shall be shown on the
drawing to indicate the lowest point of the line
under the most adverse conditions including
consideration of sag, wind load, temperature change,
and support type. We require that overhead lines be
located at least 30 feet laterally away from all
above-ground structures on the pipelines.
.
4) When underground electrical conduits,
120 volts or greater, are installed within
Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement, the
conduits must be incased in a minimum of three inches
of red concrete. Where possible, above ground warning
signs must also be placed at the right-of-way lines I
where the conduits enter and exit the right-of-way. I
I
h. The construction of sewerlines in Metropolitan'sl
fee properties and/or easements must conform to the I
California Department of Health Services Criteria for the !
Separation of Water Mains and Sanitary Services and the I
local City or County Health Code Ordinance as it relates tb
installation of sewers in the vicinity of pressure i
waterlines. The construction of sewerlines .should also I
conform to these standards in street rights-of- way.
i. Cross sect~ons shall be provided for all pipelinb
crossings showing Metropolitan's fee property and/or
easement limits and the location of our pipeline(s). The
exact locations of the crossing pipelines and their
elevations shall be marked on as-built drawings for our
information.
.
.
.
.
- 7-
j. Potholing of Metropolitan's pipeline is required
if the vertical clearance between a utility and
Metropolitan's pipeline is indicated on the plan to be one
foot or less. If the indicated clearance is between one and
two feet, potholing is suggested. Metropolitan will provide
a representative to assists others in locating and
identifying its pipeline. Two-working days notice is
requested.
k. Adeqaate shoring and bracing is required for the
full depth of the trench when the excavation encroaches
,within the zone shown on Figure 4.
1. The location of utilities within Metropolitan's
fee property aad/or easement shall be plainly marked to
help prevent d,amage during maintenance or other work done
in the area. ¡Detectable tape over buried utilities
should be plac,ed a minimum of 12 inches above the utility
and shall conf"rm to the following requirements:
1) Water pipeline: A two-inch blue warning
tape shall be imprinted with:
"CAUTION BURIED WATER PIPELINE"
2) Gas, oil, or chemical pipeline: A
two-inch yellow warning tape shall be imprinted
with:
"CAUTION BURIED
PIPELINE"
3) Sewer or storm drain pipeline: A
two-inch !1reen warning tape shall be imprinted with:
-CAUTION BURIED
PIPELINE"
4) Electric, street lighting, or traffic
signals conduit: A two-inch red warning tape shall
be imprin1:ed with:
"CAUTION BURIED
CONDUIT"
5) Telephone, or television conduit: A
two-inch orange warning tape shall be imprinted
with:
-CAUTION BU~IED
CONDUIT"
- 8 -
.
m.
Cathodic Protection requirements:
1) If there is a cathodic protection station
for Metropolitan's pipeline in the area of the proposed
work, it shall be located prior to any grading or I
excavation. The exact location, description and manneri
of protection shall be shown on all applicable plans.
Please contact Metropolitan's Corrosion Engineering
Section, located at Metropolitan's F. E. Weymouth
Softening and Filtration Plant, 700 North Moreno
Avenue, La Verne, California 91750, telephone (714)
593-7474, for the locations of Metropolitan's cathodic I
protection stations.
2) If an induced-current cathodic protection
system is to be installed on any pipeline crossing
Metropolitan's pipeline, please contact Mr. Wayne E.
Risner at (714) 593-7474 or (213) 250-50B5~ He will I
review the proposed system and determine if any
conflicts will arise with the existing cathodic I
protection systems installed by MetroPolit.an.
3) Within Metropolitan's rights-of-way,
pipelines and carrier pipes (casings) shall be coated I
with an approved protective coating to conform to ¡
Metropolitan's requirements, and shall be maintained in
a neat and orderly condition as directed by Metropolit~n.
The application and monitoring of cathodic protection I
on the pipeline and casing shall conform to Title 49 of
the Code of Federal'Regulations, Part 195.
.
4)
If a steel carrier pipe (casing) is used:
(a) Cathodic protection shall be provided
by use of a sacrificial magnesium anode (a sketch
showing the cathodic protection details can be I
provided for thè designers information).
(b) The steel carrier pipe shall be I
protected with a coal tar enamel coating inside
and out in accordance with AWWA C203 specification.
n. All trenches shall be excavated to comply with thl
CAL/OSBA Construction Safety Orders, Article 6, beginning
with Sections 1539 through 1547. Trench backfill shall be
placed in B-inch lifts and shall be compacted to 95 percent
relative compaction (ASTM D698) across roadways and through
protective dikes. Trench backfill elsewhere will be
compacted to 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D69B).
.
.
.
.
- 9 -
o. Control cables connected with the operation of
Metropolitan's system are buried within streets, its fee
properties and/or easements. The locations and elevations
of these cables shall be shown on the drawings. The
drawings shall note that prior to any excavation in the
area, the control cables shall be located and measures
shall be taken by the contractor to protect the cables in
place.
p. Metropolitan is a member of Underground Service
Alert (USA). The contractor (excavator) shall contact
USA at 1-800-422-4133 (Southern California) at least 48
hours prior to starting any excavation work. The contractor
will be liable for any damage to Metropolitan's facilities
as a result of the construction.
8.
Paramount Right
Facilities constructed within Metropolitan's fee
properties and/or easements shall be subject to the
. paramount right of Metropolitan to use its fee properties
and/or easements for the purpose for which they were
acquired. If at any time Metropolitan or its assigns
should, in the exercise of their rights, find it necessary
to remove any of the facilities from the fee properties
and/or easements, such removal and replacement shall be at
the expense of the owner of the facility.
9.
Modification of Metropolitan's Facilities
When a manhole or other of Metropolitan's facilities
must be modified to accommodate your construction or recons-
truction, Met.ropolitan will modify the facilities with its
forces. This should be noted on the construction plans. The
estimated cost to perform this modification will be given to
you and we will require a deposit for this amount before the
work is perfc'rmed. Once the deposit is received, we will
schedule the work. Our forces will coordinate the work with
your contract.or. Our final billing will be based on actual
cost incurred, and will include materials, construction,
engineering plan review, inspection, and administrative
overhead chat'ges calculated in accordance with Metropolitan's
standard accc,unting practices. If the cost is less than the
deposit, a re,fund will be made ¡ however, if the cost exceeds
the deposit, an invoice will be forwarded for payment of the
additional ænount.
b. If water must be carried across or discharged onto
Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements, Metropolitan
will insist that plans for development provide that it be I
carried by closed conduit or lined open channel approved in .
writing by Metropolitan. Also the drainage facilities must ge
maintained by others, e.g., city, county, homeowners association,
etc. If the development proposes changes to existing drainage
features, then the developer shall make provisions to provide 4IÞ
for replacement and these changes must be approved by MetroP9litan
in writing. I
I
I
During construction', Metropolitan' s field representativ~
will make periodic inspections. We request that a stipulati6n
be added to the plans or specifications for notification of I'
Mr. of Metropolitan's Operations Services Branch,
telephone (213) 250-----, at least two working days prior tol
any work in the vicinity of our facilities. I
I
- 10 -
10.
Drainage
a. Residential or commercial development typically
increases and concentrates the peak storm water runoff as
well as the total yearly storm runoff from an area; the~eby
increasing the requirements for storm drain facili ties 0,'....
downstream of the development. Also, throughout the year
water from landscape irrigation, car washing, and other
outdoor domestic water uses flows into the storm drainage
system resulting in weed abatement, insect infestation,
obstructed access and other problems. Therefore, it is
Metropolitan's usual practice not to approve plans that show
discharge of drainage from developments onto its fee
properties and/or easements.
11.
Construction Coordination
12.
Pipeline Loading Restrictions
a. Metropolitan's pipelines and conduits vary in
structural strength, and some are not adequate for
AASHTO H-20 loading. Therefore, specific loads over the
specific sections of pipe or conduit must be reviewed and
approved by Metropolitan. However, Metropolitan's pipelines
are typically adequate for AASHTO H-20 loading provided that
the cover over the pipeline is not less than four feet or
the cover is not substantially increased. If the temporary
cover over the pipeline during construction is between three
and four feet, equipment must restricted to that which
.
.
.
13.
.
14.
.
- 11-
imposes loads no greater than AASHTO H-10. If the cover is
between two and three feet, equipment must be restricted to
that of a Caterpillar D-4 tract-type tractor. If the cover
is less than t\lO feet, only hand equipment may be used.
Also, if the contractor plans to use any equipment over
Metropolitan's pipeline which will impose loads greater than
AASHTO H-20, i1: will be necessary to submit the specifications
of such equipment for our review and approval at least one
week prior to its use. More restrictive requirements may
apply to the loading guideline over the San Diego Pipelines
1 and 2, portions of the Orange County Feeder, and the
Colorado River Aqueduct. Please contact us for loading
restrictions on all of Metropolitan's pipelines and
conduits.
b. The E!xisting cover over the pipeline shall be
maintained unlE!ss Metropolitan determines that proposed
changes do not pose a hazard to the integrity of the
pipeline or an impediment to its maintenance.
Blastinq
a. At IE!ast 20 days prior to the start of any
drilling for rock excavation blasting, or any blasting,
the vicinity of Metropolitan's facilities, a two-part
preliminary conceptual plan shall be submitted to
Metropoli tan a!¡ follows:
in
b. Part 1 of the conceptual plan shall include a
complete summary of ,proposed transportation, handling,
storage, and u!,e of explosions.
c. Part 2 shall include the proposed general concept
for blasting, including controlled blasting techniques and
controls of .noise, fly rock, airblast, and ground vibration.
CEQA Requirements
a.
Prepared
When Environmental Documents Have Not Been
1) Regulations implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require that
Metropoli 1:an have an opportunity to consult with the
agency or consultants preparing any environmental
documenta1:ion. We are required to review and consider
the environmental effects of the project as shown in
the'Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) prepared for your project before conunitting
Metropoli 1:an to approve your request.
- 12 -
.
2) In order to ensure compliance with the
regulations implementing CEQA where Metropolitan is nor
the Lead Agency, the following minimum procedures to
ensure compliance with the Act have been established:
a) Metropoli tan shall be timely advised of!
any determination that a Categorical Exemption
applies to the project. The Lead Agency is to
advise Metropolitan that it and other agencies
participating in the project have complied with
the requirements of CEQA prior to Metropolitan's I
participation. I
b) Metropolitan is to be consulted during i
the preparation of the Negative Declaration or I
EIR. I
c) Metropolitan is to review and submit any
necessary comments on the Negative Declaration or:
~ft~. I
,
,
d) Metropolitan is to be indemnified for
any costs or liability arising out of any
violation of any laws or regulations including
not limited to the California Environmental
Quality Act and its implementing regulations.
.
!
bu't
I
I
I
¡
When Environmental Documents. Have Been Prepared I
. i
If env~ronmental documents have been prepared for your¡
project, please furnish us a copy for our review and files
in a timely manner so that we may have sufficient time to
review and comment. The following steps must also be
accomplished:
b.
15.
Metropolitan's Plan-Review Cost
,
I
I
1) The Lead Agency is to advise Metropolitan I
that it and other agencies participating in the project
have complied with the requirements of CEQA prior to [
Metropolitan's participation. I
2) You must agree to indemnify Metropolitan, iJs
officers, engineers, and agents for any costs or I
liability arising out of any violation of any laws or I
regulations including but not limited to the California
Environmental Quality Act and its implementing regula~ions.
I
I
[
a. An engineering review of your proposed facilities
and developments and the preparation of a letter response
.
.
.
.
16.
- 13 -
giving Metropolitan's comments, requirements anè/or approval
that will require 8 man-hours or less of effort is typicallv
performed at rlo cost to the developer, unless a facility -
must be modified where Metropolitan has superior rights. If
an engineerinc;' review and letter response requires more than
8 man-hours of effort by Metropolitan to determine if the
proposed facility or development is compatible with its
facilities, or if modifications to Metropolitan's manhole(s)
or other facilities will be required, then all of
Metropolitan's costs associated with the project must be
paid by the developer, unless the developer has superior
rights.
b. A deposit of funds will be required from the
developer before Metropolitan can begin its detailed
engineering plan review that will exceed 8 hours. The
amount of the required deposit will be determined after a
cursory review of the plans for the proposed development.
c. Metropolitan's final billing will be based on
actual cost incurred, and will include engineering plan
review, inspection, materials, construction, and
administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance
with Metropolitan's standard accounting practices. If the
cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made;
however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an invoice will be
forwarded for payment of the additional amount. Additional
déposits may be required if the cost of Metropolitan's
review exceeds the amount of the initial deposit.
Caution
We advise you that Metropolitan's plan reviews and
responses are based upon information available to
Metropolitan which was prepared by or on behalf of
Metropolitan for general record purposes only. Such
information may not be sufficiently detailed or accurate for
your purposes. No warranty of any kind, either express or
implied, is attached to the information therein conveyed as
to its accuracy, and no inference should be drawn from
Metropolitan's failure to comment on any aspect of your
project. You are therefore cautioned to make such surveys
and other field investigations as you may deem prudent to
assure yourself that any plans for your project are correct.
- 14 -
.
17.
Additional Information
Should you require additional information, please contact:
Civil Enaineerina Substructures Section
Metropolitan Water District
of Southern California
P.o. Box 54153
Los Angeles, California 90054-0153
(213) 217 -6000
JEH/MRW/l.k
Rev. January 22,1989
Encl..
.
.
.......--8..-----------..----
-e-...-.-..----....--.--..-.---.-.--.......-.--.-----........ .....
.
§
~
i
~
j
!
!
~
I
-/
CRANE
ALSO DUMP TRUCK
PARKING
2'
TIIC Mtl1fOPOLlTAH WATtR DI.5TRICT
... ""'r'~ "".""'"
211'-0"
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
WIDTHS
44'-0"
f::ffti::;:::::.::~ :Z:::::~:::.:.:::::::::.:::::~::.
FIGURE I
'0'. .0 ... .... "... '.0. .0. ......
NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES PERMITTED
Mow'D. PERMANENT RIGHT OF WAY
~
~
NO ROOF OVERHANG PERMITTED--C:
1"",.,,-1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FOOTING MUST NOT
ENCROACH INTO'
RIGHT OF WAy.
BUILDING
ADJACENT
TO RIGHT
OF WAr
~
itl
~
FINISHE!)
SURFACE
----
.I,n: ,
T1tE IIIt:T1fOPOUTAN WATER DISTRICT
..-...- I
REOU/REMENTS FOR
BUILDINGS AND FOOTINGS
ADJACENT TO MoW-Oj
RIGHT OF WAY!
NOTE: Mow,o. PIPELINE SIZE,DEPTH,LOCATION
AND WIDTH OF PERMANENT RIGHT OF
WAY VARIES.
n..' ~~'-""-' -.
~~
.........--- .
---L- '
!
FIGUrE 2
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
,
I
I'
I
¡.
I
I
!
!
i
:
,
,
i
I
!
i
!
.
--------.-.---------.----------- .--
.
~
i
i
Ê
!
!
. M.w.D. PERMANENT RIGHT OF WAY
NO DEEP: . NO TREES NÓ DEE~
ROOTED TREES .-1 ' ONLY APPROVED SHALLOW ROOTED TREES
ROOTING SHRUBS OR GRASSES
15'
15'
FINISHED
SURFACE
8--
TIlt: "'fT1fOPOL/rAN WArER OlnRlCr
... ,""",... ....".....
LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES
FOR
M,w.D. RIGHT OF WAY
!ž:g:¡:;:::::.:.:~.: ':-'"'::~:::o:':::::::::.:::::.::
fiGURE 3
-. 0--'-'--------'----------- -------.---.-.- ___'_0___._.
,.no o. ... o.n. .. no'. 0.. on..n>
-.-.-.--..--------..-..--.------.----.-- -..---'-.'
.-------..-.
.
~
~
~
n
,
i
llJ
~ "=;-","
....
)..,
.....
~
~
rf SmE"
I
I
...o;o;~
/
/
/
/
/
/
/^-----AOEQUATE SHORING AND BRACINv"
REQUIRED FOR THE FULL DEPTH OF
THE TRENCH WHEN THE EXCAVATION
. ENCROACHES WITHIN THIS ZONE
TIlE 1>IfTrfOPOLlTAH WATZR D/$T/Ilct
., ............."..-
SHORING AND BRACING
REQUIREMENTS
-,-
!::iiìi:::::';:;~~ -~ ~~::.::':.::'-'- ::.-::.- ::.:::
FIGURE 4
...- . ,... "... n..... ...,..,
.
.
.
Ie)
I,¡,,¡
~
\:)
~
!
:
~
~
~~
~
SECTION "A-A"
" x 6" premolded
expansion joint
filler
e
Apertures t15. directed by..:.
the Enj¡ìneer,totalvolume '
not ra exceed J the IIOlume -------
of the supporting wall
. J:
Concrete support wall ta
be placed against undis-
turbed ground
--------
--------
--------
I. Supporting wall shall have a lirm bearing on the
subgrade and against the side of the excavation.
2. Premolded expansion joint IllIer per ASTM 0-1751-73
to be used in support lor steel pipe only.
3. If trench width is 4 leet or greater,meosured along
centerline 01 M. W. O. pipe, concrete support must
be constructed.
4. If trencl1 width is less than 4 feet,clean sond back-
fill, compacted to 90% density in accordance with
the provisions 01 ASTM Standard 0-1557-70 may
be' used In lieu of the concrete support wall.
.'~,"~-'-~"""'-'KT ,-,
T1fE MET1lOPOLJTAN WAreR DlSTRIt:T
.,-- I
I
TYPICAL SUPPORT FOR
M.w.O. PIPELINE I
!
=---..0'" - I
--- ..-, --L-
C-9547
I
I
"
,
I
I
I
I
I
¡
I
I-
I
.
e
::.
.!§ ~
.~ "
~~
" ::
~tI)
Sand backfill
.......c_- ......-.y ....
Trt.'f1ch width
G
r 3" Prt!formt!d uponsion
--1- joint fillt!r
w NOTES .-
I. This m~thod to D~'us~d wh~r~ th~
utility lin~ is 24. or gr~ot~r in
diom~ter and the clearance
De tween the utility lin~ and M.w. O.
pipe is /2. or less.
2. Special protection may be r~t¡uired
if the utility line diam~ter is
greatu thon M.w. 0. pipe or if th~
cover ov~r /h~ utility line to the
street surfac~ is minimol and thue
is 12. or less clearance between M.w.o.
pipe and the utility lin~.
.3. Preformed expansion joint filler to
comply with ASTM designation
0-1751-7.3.
4. M.WO. r~quests 12"minimum
clearance whenever possible.
<':"~:::::':~";:';":::'::'::":"::::~~:::'
/Í &~~D. pipt!
~~
1.
I
I
1
,
-~
Ðrcol'olion limits
CROSS
SECTION
Prtformt!d t!xponsion
joint fillt!r
T1Œ M£T1rOPDLfTAN WAnR DISr1f1r:7
",--
TYPICAL EXPANSION JOINT
FILLER PROTECTION FOR
OVERCROSSING OF
M.WO. PIPELINE
= -v-- ...
---
C-1I632
-(
IanDha
Water
Boo'" ofD"""'"
John E. Hoagland
Pre",..,
c.... F. Ko
s.-. Vioo ",.'¡d.",
S"pb.nJ.Co~
Balpb H. Døßy
Ben R. Droke
Liea D. He=a.
John V. RoeeI
Offioo",
Phillip L Fo""'e
¡"terim """.,,1 Man.....
,",...""ofFi~n~_"""
E.P. "Bob" Lem~
,"",""orE_.......
K~tb C. Dealy
,"",tn"fOpe"tlo",
&M.inte~"oo
Pony R. Loud<
Con"""...
Linda M. Fre,....
m"",, Se<N"",,'AdnUn;,tnotive
8<nvioo, M"'...'
C. Michael C~tt
.... Be" & KrIepr ILl'
Gen...al Co~..1
~:@ŒD\!lŒ~
D~~~ ':0: 2003 tV
Sheila Powers, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
MARGARITA PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
LOT NO. 79 OF TRACT NO. 24134-2
APN 955-150-027
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA03-0677
Dear Ms. Powers:
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.
This project has the potential to become a commercial condominium site with
individual building/unit ov.¡ners and a property ov/TIers' association maintaining
the common property as well as the private water and fire protection facilities.
RCWD requires that the City of Temecula (City) include a Reciprocal Easement
And Maintenance Agreement for these on-site private water facilities as a
condition of the project. In addition to this agreement, RCWD will require an
individual water meter for each building/unit if a condominium conversion does,
in fact, take place:
RCWD has an existing recycled waterline within Margarita Road. The District
will require the developer to use recycled water for the on-site landscaping of
this project.
Rancho California We", m....."
42135 Win,'"te, Hmd . Po" om.. Bo> 9017 . Tomomle. Celifom;, 92589-9017 . (909)296.6900 . FAX (909) 296-6860
...---""
Sheila Powers/City of Temecula
December 1, 2003
Page Two
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this
(909) 296-6977.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
-~
~~..~..
Steve Brannon, P .E.
Development Engineering Manager
03\SB:mcO60IFO12- T6IFCF
c:
Ed Delgado, Meter Services Manager
Craig Elitharp, Water Operations Manager
Andrew Webster, Planning and Capital Projects Manager
Bud Jones, Engineering Project Coordinator
Laurie Williams, Engineering Services Supervisor
~
Ra".ho C.H'omia Ware. matri«
'2l35W'.,h"",.Ro.' . p,.,omooB,,'O17 . Temeoola.Californ'.'2589-'O!7 . {909l296-6900 . FAX'909l2'6-6860
,~
November 26, 2003
) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. HEAL 'H SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O.Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
~Œ@ŒDWŒ~
W DEe 0 4 2003 W
RE:
Plot Plan No. PA03-0677
ATfN: Sheila Powers
By
1. Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA03-0677 and has no
objections.
2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL ISSUANCE:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts.
.
b) If there are to h~ any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete
sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a
ifinish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California
Unifonn Retail Food Facilities Law 2. For specific reference, contact Food Facility Plan
Examiners at (909) 461-0284.
c) If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Department of
Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch, at (909) 461-0284, 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).
. Wa~:te reduction management.
Sincerely,
¿)\ U~~
Donna Vilalta, EHS III
DV:dv
(909) 955-8980
.
cc: Bob Lehman, Bonnie Dierking
'rnnrt"rl'c'~
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,;",doom,"""'p,,@