HomeMy WebLinkAbout020491 PC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
February 0o,, 1991 6:00 PM
VAIL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
29915 Mira Loma Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Chiniaeff
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff
Hoagland,
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the
commissioners on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are
limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Commissioners
about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should
be filled out and filed with the Commissioner Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and
address.
For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the
Planning Secretary before Commission gets to that item. There is a three (3)
minute time limit for individual speakers.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No.
Applicant:
R epresentati ve:
Proposal:
Location:
Staff Presentor:
Summary Vacation of So, General Kearny Road
Margarita Village Development Company
Rick Engineering Company
Vacate a portion of South General Kearny Rd.
West side of Meadow Parkway, east of La Serena Rd.
Doug Stewart
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No.
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Plot Plan No. 122
Weston-Whitfield Architects
West side of Ynez Road, South of Solana Way
Construction of a 21,700 square foot automotive dealership
on 4.55 acres
Approval
Mark Rhoades
Caae No,:
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Plot Plan No. 10579 - Revision No. 1
Bedford Properties
Southwest Corner of Rancho California Rd.. and Ynez Rd.
Restaurant in existing hotel to be opened for general
public use.
Continued to 2/25/91
Karen Castro
Case No.
Applicant:
Representative:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Case No.
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Case Planner:
Plot Plan 216 (PP 216) Amd. No. 1
Ballatore Construction
Markham F, Associates
Northeasterly corner of Rio Nedo and Via Industria
Request for approval to construct a two-story,
10,500 Sq. Ft. +/- commercial office building.
Approval
Charles Ray
Plot Plan 138
John and Christine McCusker
South Corner of Metcedes and Third Street
Revised Permit for a Portable Classroom
Approval
Richard Ayala
6. Planninq Director Report
Western Corridor Road Discussion
Discussion of Council Policy on Minute Preparation
7. Planning Commission Discussion
Meeting Hall Floor Plan
8. Other Business
Make a motion to cancel regular scheduled meeting of February 18, 1991 and
hold a special meeting February 25, 1991.
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: February 25, 1991, 6:00 PM, Vail Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma
Drive, Temecula, California.
SJ/Ib
ITEM #1
STAFF REPORT - ENGINEERING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 4, 1991
Case No. :Summary Vacation of General Kearny Road
Prepared By: Doug Stewart .~'~'
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 91 -
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
Margarita Village Development Company
Rick Engineering Company
Vacate portion of South General Kearny Road
Generally located on the west side of Meadow
Parkway (formerly Kaiser Parkway) east of La
Serena Road.
S.P.199 (Specific Plan No. 199: Margarlta Village)
North: R-4 and R-R
South: S.P.
East: S.P.
West: S.P. and R-1
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Graded/unimproved
Graded (unimproved) and single family residential
BACKGROUND:
Government Code Section 65360 requires that before
any planning action is taken, including a street
vacation, a finding of consistency with the future
General Plan must be made.
DISCUSSION:
South General Kearny Road is to be vacated in its entirety between Meadow Parkway
( Formerly Kaiser Parkway ) to a point 800 feet east of La Serena Way. Vacation of the
south 22+/- feet of South General Kearny Road between La Serena Way and a point
800 feet to the east is also proposed.
This vacation is in conjunction with Vesting Tract Map No. 23371-8 final map
recordation and per the Conditions of Approval for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
23371. The vacation affects phases 4,5,8,9, 11,12, 14, and 15. The project site and
property to the west, east, and south are within the Margarita Village Specific Plan
No. 199 and is graded. Land to the North is outside of the Specific Plan area and
developed as single family residential.
South General Kearny Road was originally designated as an 88 foot wide right-d-way
extending between La Serena Way and Meadow Parkway. In place of South General
Kearny Road will be a curvilineal street pattern which limits direct access between
La Serena Way and Meadow Parkway.
The present alignment of South General Kearny Way is unimproved at this time. No
utilities exist within the right-of-way. The proposed street circulation pattern is
consistent with the Margarita Village Specific Plan No. 199 and is not inconsistent
with the Southwest Area Community Plan. As stated in the State of California
Streets and Highway Code, Section 8333, a summary vacation may proceed if it is
found that "the easement has been superceded by relocation and there are no other
public facilities located within the easement".
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
Since the subject vacation and the proposed street alignment are in conformance with
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23371 and Specific Plan No. 199, and the easement
has been "superseded" by the relocation of all utilities and other public uses, Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 91- , finding the
vacation of the existing South General Kearny Road alignment between La Serena Way
and Meadow Parkway to be consistent with the Southwest Area Community Plan and
is expected to be consistent with the proposed General Plan currently being
developed by the City of Temecula and will not be of substantial detriment to the
General Plan if the vacation is found to be inconsistent when the General Plan is
adopted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT Resolution 91-__ finding
that the SUMMARY VACAT ION of SOUTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD is CONSISTENT
with the General Plan presently being developed by the City of Temecula, and that
there is no likelihood of substantial detriment to the General Plan if the vacation is
ultimately found to be inconsistent with the final plan adopted by the City.
CH:mb
Attachments:
Legal Description and Plat
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23371
Vicinity Map
STAFFRPT\VAC.SGKRD 2
VINEYARD
AUTO
CENFEF
H,~h
Project Site
3050 Chicago Ax cnuc
Suite 100
Rixcrsidc. CA 92507
(714}782 0707
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
J-10583
VACATION OF A PORTION OF SOUTH GENERAL
KEARNY ROAD
By: BR/jZ
Chk. TH
Date: September 20,
Page 1 of 2
1990
EXHIBIT "A"
I~/~ ~0
Legal Description
TC Ref.
Co,
Order No.
Date
Oescr.
Rev. By
A portion of South General Kearny Road, per Instrument No. 60190,
recorded June 24, 1970, in the office of the County Recorder,
County of Riverside, State of California, as delineated on Amended
Parcel Map No. 21884, recorded in Book 152, Pages 22-31 of Parcel
Maps in said County; said portion lying Easterly of the Easterly
right-of-way line of La Serena Way and Westerly of the Westerly
right-of-way line of Meadows Parkway
(formerly Kaiser Parkway) all as shown on said map.
Excepting therefrom any portion thereof lying within the following
described parcel:
Commencing at the centerline intersection of La Serena Way and
South General Kearny Road as shown on said Parcel Map; thence South
1~ 19'34" West 61.65 feet along the centerline of La Serena Way;
thence South 7~ 40'26" East 44.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence North 6154'40" East 36.08 feet to the beginning
of a non-tangent 467.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly,
a radial line to said curve bears North 2~41'29" East; thence
Easterly along said curve through a central angle of 3° 32'53", a
distance of 28.92 feet; thence South 5~ 45'38" East 354.36 feet to
the beginning of a tangent 1222.00 foot radius curve concave
Northeasterly; thence Southeasterly and Easterly along said curve
through a central angle of 1~ 45'53", a distance of 314.90 feet,
to the beginning of a 100.00 foot radius reversing curve concave
Southerly, a radial line to said curve bears North 15028'29'' East;
thence Easterly along said curve through a central angle of 2f
00'42", a distance of 36.67 feet; thence South 59 30'49" East 50.00
feet, to the beginning of a tangent 49.00 foot radius curve concave
Northwesterly; thence Easterly, Northerly and Northwesterly along
said curve through a central angle of 205°46'36'',
RE103 489
3050 Chicago A~enue
Suite 100
Riverside. CA 92507
1714) 782-0707
RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY
Legal Description
3--10583 TC Ref,
Co.
VACATION OF A PORTION OF SOUTH GENERAL
KEARNY ROAD Order No.
Date
By: BR/j z
Chk. TH De$cr.
Rev. By
Date: September 20, 1990
Page 2 of 2
a distance of 175.98 feet, to the beginning of a reversing 1156.00
foot radius curve concave Northeasterly a radial line to said curve
bears South 1~ 42'35" West; thence Westerly along said curve
through a central angle of 1~ 31'47", a distance of 394.03 feet;
thence North 5~ 45'38" West 354.36 feet to the beginning of a
tangent 533.00 foot radius curve concave Southwesterly; thence
Northwesterly along said curve through a central angle of ~03'51",
a distance of 47.11 feet; thence North 2[ 44'57" West 30.83 feet
to a point on the Easterly right-of-way line of La Serena Way;
thence South 1~ 19'34" West, 114.75 feet to the TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
See exhibits "B" and "C", attached hereto and by this reference
made a part hereof.
Robert A. Stockton
R.C.E. 33591
License Expires 6-30-94
RET03 489
P.4BC6Z !
HWD AZF LIHZ
PER R8
A.
~J,~'O.6 -06 ",'
A, P,N.
PAti'CEL ,5
aa'--i
Z~LOh' '; --"~,
~////////,~,~,c,~s ~
~ ~ ~E VA~E~
DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
JS41 2 J- 24
/--SEE
E)fItlBIT '~ "
A.P.N.
c04.6-0.6-05
P, M, 81,39
A, P.N.
c-948-05-08
/
P,~RCEL 4
A.P,N,
/948 - Q5 - 06
,'R,S,
A.R N.
--"948 -95- I J
EXHIBIT "B"
VACATION OF A PORTION OF
SOUTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD
CITY OF TEMECULA
PICK INI31NIIIRINO COMPANY
"'R::~ECT kLeVeER 10583
SC;ALE NOT TO SC4~Ld DATE 9-5"90
~//////////j ,.~.cA'r Es
C
TO BE VA ATED
I
.d ' tO~ '46 ~TG~ y
D178~8'
M ki 0 HEFEBE41CE ~
'-'RENA WAy
' PM
i A.PN
. ,
SEE EXHIBIT "B"
EXHIBIT "C"
VACATION OF A PORTION OF
SOUTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD
CITY OF TEMECULA
]EL 4
P, 3\/], J 52 /22~3 J
ARN. ~46-C)5-06
RICK INIilN!IRINra COMPANY
CIVIL INGIINBI[RII-IUFIVIYI31II,pI~ANNIRll
R='~.JECT r-,u,.aS~m I O58;~
SCALE NOT TO SCALE f OATE 9-5-90
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA REGARDING VACATION OF A
STREET EASEMENT.
WHEREAS, the City is presently the owner of a street located within
Tentative Vesting Tract Map No. 23371 (hereinafter, the "Easement"). The
Easement is more particularly described in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference;
WHEREAS, Margarita Village Development Company, has petitioned that
the City vacate the Easement; and
WHEREAS, before the City may vacate this easement, it must be
determined whether the vacation is consistent with the General Plan the City is
presently developing, pursuant to Government Code Section 65360;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. There is a reasonable probability that vacation of the
Easement will be consistent with the General Plan the City is presently developing.
SECTION 2. There is no likelihood of substantial detriment to or
interference with the City's future General Plan if vacating the Easement ultimately
is inconsistent with the Plan.
SECTION 3. The vacation of the Easement complies with all other
applicable requirements of State Law and City ordinances.
SECTION ~,.
adoption of this Resolution.
The Secretary to the Commission shall certify the
SECTION 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Temecula,
does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution vacating South
Ceneral Kearny Road in conformance with Exhibit A.
PASSED· APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
· 19
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
STAFFRPT\VAC.SGKRD 3
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the __day of , 19 , by the following vote of
the Planning Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
SECRETARY
ITEM ~2
Recommendation:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 4, 1991
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 122
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration
for Plot Plan No. 122; and
2. ADOPT Resolution 91- approving
Plot Plan No. 122; based on the
Analysis and Findings contained
in the Staff Report and subject
to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
Robert C. Gregory
Weston-Whitfield Architects
Construction of a new automobile sales and service
facility on 4.5 acres.
West side of Ynez Road, 500 feet south of Solaria
Way.
C-P { General Commercial )
North: C-P I General Commercial )
South: C-P I General Commercial )
East: C-P I General Commercial )
West: Freeway 11-15)
Not requested.
Vacant, Graded
North: Vacant, Graded
South: Existing Car Dealership
East: Vacant
West: Freeway
STAFFRPT\PP122 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
APN:
Site Area:
Building Area:
Main Structure
Service Facility
Total
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
921 - 080 - 01 u,
~. 55 gross acres
12,200 sq.ft.
9,500 sq.ft.
21,700 sq.ft.
163 spaces
163 spaces
The proposed project site is Parcel Number One ( 1 )
of Parcel Map No. 23u,96. Parcel Map No. 23u,96 was
approved by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors on April ~,, 1989. The current project
proposal was submitted to this department on
August 9, 1990. The project was taken before the
Preliminary Development Review Committee on
October 11, 1990. Correctiuns were requested and
subsequently made by the applicant. The project
proposal received a Final Development Review
Committee hearing on December 20, 1990. Final
corrections were submitted and the proposal was
noticed for public hearing.
Plot Plan No. 122 is an application to construct a
21,700 square foot automobile sales and service
facility located on approximately u,.55 acres
southerly of Solana Way on the west side of Ynez
Road. The proposed project site is surrounded by
an existing automobile dealership (Acura) to the
north, Interstate 15 to the west, and vacant land to
the south and east.
Ynez Road will be improved to full half width right-
of-way.
The proposed project will take access from Ynez
Road. The proposed site provides adequate aisle
width for circulation. Parking is provided in
accordance with Section 18.12 of Ordinance 3u,8.
Separate parking is identified on the site plan for
customer, employee, and service areas.
Architecture
The proposed structure is contemporary in design.
The building exhibits grey cement tile, mainly in
the two porte cochere areas where the roof is
hipped. The building front consists of a mixture of
smoked glass and square columns which support a
large arcade covering for new vehicle display area.
STAFFRPT\PP122 2
ANALYSIS:
A grey split-face block wainscoting encircles the
base of the building perimeter. The building store
front will be white. The balance of the building
area will consist of light grey stucco with dark grey
trim.
The service bay structure is similar in design and
material content to the show room building. The
rear {west) wall of the service bays will be visible
from the 1-15 freeway. This elevation is treated
with grey stucco and grey split-face block. Ample
landscaping at this elevation will also soften the
proposed buildlng's visibility from the freeway.
Landscapinq
The proposed landscaping incorporates a
substantial number of 15 gallon and 2L~ inch box
trees. A total of 21 Holly Oak Trees are proposed.
Staff recommends that because of the slow nature of
growth that the Holly Oak (0 uercus I lex ) exhibits,
that all proposed specimens be minimum 24 inch box.
Landscaping is included at islands within the
parking area.
A front landscape setback with a minimum width of
25 feet is proposed adjacent to Ynez Road. The
landscape planter will include three (3) foot high
berming and 15 gallon street trees planted 25 feet on
center. Staff recommends that the proposed street
tree be designated as "Liquidambar Styfacifilla".
A rear landscape setback is provided because of the
need to observe a a,0 foot wide EMWD easement. The
proposed rear setback ranges from ~,5 to 70 feet in
width and includes clumps of Eucalyptus trees. The
rear setback separates the proposed rear (west)
side of the service building from the freeway. The
proposed Eucalyptus trees will provide visual relief
in addition to the proposed architecture.
Land Use Compatibility
The proposed project is an automotive dealership
and service facility. The proposed site is located in
an area which is currently experiencing or has
experienced development which is similar in nature
and intensity to that which is proposed. In fact,
several other dealerships already exist or are
proposed in the immediate vicinity.
STAFFRPT\PP122 3
FINDINGS:
Conditions of Approval. Staff recommends that a
Negative Declaration be adopted.
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 122 will be consistent with the City~s
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law. The project, as proposed,
conforms with existing applicable city zoning
and development ordinances. Further, the
proposal is characteristic of similar
development approved by the City to date.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference with
the City~s future General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan. The project is of insignificant scale
in context of the broad goals and direct(yes
anticipated in the City's General Plan.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws. Reference
local Ordinances No. 3~,8, u,60; and California
Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009
(Planning and Zoning Law).
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
Adequate site circulation, parking, and
landscaping are provided; as well as
sufficient area to appropriately construct the
proposed structure, Reference Exhibits D
and F.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare. Reference the proposal's Initial
Environmental Assessment.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area. The project
conforms with applicable land use and
development regulations and reflects design
aspects currently existing in the proposal's
general vicinity.
STAFFRPT\PP122 5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic. The project
site's primary frontage is on Ynez Road, a
dedicated City right-of-way currently
undergoing necessary improvements prior to
its acceptance within the City Maintained
Road System.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study
performed for this project. Reference the
attached Initial Environmental Study and
Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 122.
The design of the project together with the
type of supporting improvements are such
that they are not in conflict with easements
for access through, or use of the property
within the proposed project. Reference the
approved parcel map design (Exhibit E) vis-
a-vis the project site plan in question
I Exhibit D) .
10.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference. Supporting
documentation is attached.
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan
No. 122; and
ADOPT Resolution 91 - approvlng Plot Plan
No. 122; based on the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report and subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
MR:ks
Attachments:
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Exhibits
STAFFRPT~PP122 6
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 122 TO
CONSTRUCT A 12,200 SQUARE FOOT AUTOMOTIVE
SALES FACILITY; AND A 9,500 SQUARE FOOT SERVICE
BAY ON A PARCEL CONTAINING ~.5 ACRES LOCATED
SOUTHERLY OF SOLANA WAY ON THE WEST SIDE OF
YNEZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO,
921-080- 014.
WHEREAS, Robert C. Gregory filed Plot Plan No. 122 in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plan on February ~,, 1991, at which time interested persons
had opportunity to testify either in suppor"t or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findin,qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
I1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
12 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
{a) There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
STAFFRPT\PP122 7
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP'~) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
a)
There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 122 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. |1) Pursuant to Section 18.30{c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
STAFFRPT\PP122 8
The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
b)
The overall development of the land is
designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms
to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical
development of the surrounding property.
~ 2 ) The Planning Commission, in approving the proposed
Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 122 will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law. The project, as proposed,
conforms with existing applicable city zoning
and development ordinances. Further, the
proposal is characteristic of similar
development approved by the City to date.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference with
the City~s future General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan. The project is of insignificant scale
in context of the broad goals and directives
anticipated in the City's General Plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws. Reference
local Ordinances No. 3L!8, z~60; and California
Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009
IPlanning and Zoning Law).
d)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
Adequate site circulation, parking, and
landscaping are provided; as well as
sufficient area to appropriately construct the
proposed structure, Reference Exhibits D
and F.
STAFFRPT\PP122 9
e)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare. Reference the proposaPs Initial
Environmental Assessment.
f)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area. The project
conforms with applicable land use and
development regulations and reflects design
aspects currently existing in the proposaPs
general vicinity.
g)
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-d-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic. The project
site's primary frontage is on Ynez Road, a
dedicated City right-of-way currently
undergoing necessary improvements prior to
its acceptance within the City Maintained
Road System.
h)
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the initial study
performed for this project. Reference the
attached Initial Environmental Study and
Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan No. 122.
The design of the project together with the
type of supporting improvements are such
that they are not in conflict with easements
for access through, or use of the property
within the proposed project. Reference the
approved parcel map design {Exhibit E) vis-
a-vls the project site plan in question
I Exhibit D) .
j)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and hereln
incorporated by reference. Supporting
documentation is attached.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
STAFFRPT\PP122 10
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, recommended.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 122 to construct a 12,200 square foot automotive sales building; and a 9,500
square foot service bay facility located southerly of Solana Way, on the west side of
Ynez Road and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-080-014 subject to the following
conditions:
A. Attachment II, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this Llth day of February, 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 4th day of February, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PP122 11
ATTACHMENT ) I
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 122
Project Description: Plot Plan Application
for Chevrolet Dealership on ~.55 Acres
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-080-018, 017,
and 01q
Planninq Department
1. The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for an automobile dealership.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan
No. 122. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate
fully in the defense. if the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two {2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 122 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these
conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Departmentis Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
STAFFRPT\PP122 12
11.
12o
13.
15.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal
dated October 9, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance No. 5u,6 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated
December 19, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the CalTrans
transmittal dated December 17, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the San
Bernardino County Museum transmittal dated October 8, 1990, a copy of which
is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
Water District transmittal dated December 20, 1990, a copy of which is
attached.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three {3) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species,
and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all
requirements of Ordinance No. 3u,8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied
by the appropriate filing fee.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten { 10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty 130)
inches.
A minimum of 163 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3LI8. 163 parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A.
A minimum of 5 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on
Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade,
or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
STAFFRPT\PP122 , 13
16.
17.
18.
19.
21.
22.
23.
24.
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's
expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at
or by telephone "
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in
blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
CalTrans
Fire Department
Environmental Health
School District
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the following additional plans shall
be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Landscaping, irrigation, and Shading Plans.
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by
the Planning Director prior to occupancy.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit B.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit B (Color Elevations) and Exhibit C
(Materials Board).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening
material shall be subject to Planning Department approval.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with
decorative masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from
external view.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655.
STAFFRPT\PP122 14
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed
and in good working order.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the
applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check
or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand,
Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One
Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ~ $1,250.00 ) fee, in compliance with A B
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar {$25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight (48) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section
711.4(c).
Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the applicant shall provide a
letter of clearance from the Riverside County Geelegist.
Prior to the issuance of any grading permits the applicant shall comply with
the Geotechnical Report completed for Parcel Map No. 23496 dated August 2Lt,
1989.
This project is located within a subsidence report zone. Prior to issuance of
any building permit by the City of Temecula Department of Building and
Safety, a California licensed Structural Engineer shall certify that the
intended structure or building is safe and structurally integrated. This
certification shall be based upon, but not be limited to, the site specific
seismic, geologic and geotechnical conditions. Where hazard of subsidence or
fissure development is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures
must be demonstrated.
STAFFRPT\PP122 15
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with
Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is
based on (the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development) {the
number of single family residential units on lots which are a minimum of one-
half (1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by
the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under
the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolutjon.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
3Li. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
CalTrans.
35.
The developer shall submit four (~,) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~"x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
36.
The developer shall submit four (4) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
37.
A Ceological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
38.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\PP122 16
39.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid
and an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following
right-of-way.
State Highway 15
Sufficient right-of-way along Ynez Road shall be confirmed to exist or
conveyed for public use to provide for a public street for public use to
provide for a 67 foot half width right-d-way.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compact{on and site conditions.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County
Standard L~O0 and ~,01 {curb sidewalk).
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. q61 and as approved by the
City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\PP122 17
50.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
51.
Prior to occupancy, the developer shall provide evidence that the Mello-Roos
District will construct the improvements on Ynez Road, in accordance with
County Standard No. 100, Section A ~ 110' / 134' ).
In the event that the Mello-Roos District will not construct the improvements,
the developer shall be required to construct the improvements.
52.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the ElR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been flnally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
53.
Top of slope shall be located at property line, or a retaining wall shall be
required in the event that the developer cannot obtain permission to locate the
slope on adjacent property.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for Ynez Road and shall be included for
the limits of the street improvement plans. It shall be noted that upon
construction of the raised median, no left turning movements will be permitted
for ingress or egress to the proposed driveway.
55.
Prior to designin9 any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
56°
The developer shall provide evidence that the Mello-Roos District will
construct the improvements on Ynez Road, including all signing and striping,
in accordance with the approved signing and striping plan. If in the event
that the Mello-Roos District will not construct these improvements, the
developer shall be required to do so.
STA FFR PT\PP122 18
AGENCY RESPONSE LETTERS
STAFFRPT\PP122 19
County o " Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA DATE:
AT~N? Mark Rhoades
( 0 HEALTH SPECIALIST IV
FROM: . EHVIR NMENTAL
10-09-90
RE: ?PLOT PLAN NO. 122
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No.
122 has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services
are available in this area. Prior to bui]dino Dlan
submittal, the following items will be requested:
1. '*Will-serve" letters from the water and sewerinO
agencies.
2. Three comDlete sets of Dlans for each food
establishment will be submitted, includinQ a
fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a
DlumbinQ schedule in order to ensure comDliance
with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities
Law.
SM:dr
co: Jon
If there are to be any hazardous materials, a
c~r~_Ag.~X from the Environmental Health
Servzces Hazardous Materials Management Branch
(Jon Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required
indicating that the project has been cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services.
c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with
AB 2185).
d. Waste reduction management.
Mohoroski, Hazardous Materials Branch
PLANNING&ENGINEERING
46-209 OASIS STREE~ SUITE 405
INDIO, CA 92201
(619) 342-8886
I/IVF, RSIDI~, COUNTY
FIIIF, I)EI'AIITMENT
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION
~.lt>,'l ~,1\~%~\~~,
FIII. E t2HIEF
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
3760 12TH STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
(714) 275-4777
DATE: December 19, 1990
TO:
City of Temecula
ATTN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mark Rhodes
RE:
Plot Plan 122
With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above
referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the follow-
ing fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
Riverside County Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection
standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow
for the remodel or construction of all commercial building
using the procedure established in Ordinance 546.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of
delivering 1750 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual
operating pressure, which must be available before any
combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants~
on a looped system (6"x4"x2 1/2"x2 1/2")~ wilI be located
not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion
of the building as measured along approved vehicular travel
ways, The required fire flow shall be available from any
adjacent hydrant(s) in ti~e system.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in
the permit process to reflect changes in design, construc-
tion type, area separation or built-in fire protection
Applicant/Developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall
conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing,
and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans
shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and
the local water company with the following certification:
RE: PP 122 Page 2
10.
11.
12.
"I certify that the design of the water system is
once with the requirements prescribed by the
County Fire Department".
in accord-
Riverside
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings
requiring a fire flow of 1500 GPM or greater. The post
indicator valve and fire department connection shall be
located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a
minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that
the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinkled must
be included on the title page of the building plans.
Install a supervised water flow monitoring fire alarm sys
tem. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for
approval prior to installation, as required by the Uniform
Building Code.
A statement that the building will be autematically fire
sprinkled must appear on the title page of the building
plans.
Occupancy separation will be required as per tile Uniform
Building Code, Section 5U3.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of
the Uniform Building Code. Low-level Exit Signs, where exit
signs are required by Section 5514 (a).
Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained
as fire lanes.
Install portable fire e>:tlnguishers with a minimum rating of
2A-IOBC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for
proper placement of equipmont.
Applicant/Developer shall be respensible for obtaining
underground tank permits from both the County Health and
Fire Departments. Including proposed storage of waste oil.
Gate access must be equipped with emergency power back-up.
B~te ~il~s must be rated with shear pin force, not to ex[eed
30 foot pounds.
14. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/de
veloper shall be responsible to submit a check or money
order in the amount of $558.00 to the City of lemecula for
plan check fees.
15. Prior to the issuance of hullcling permits, thw developer
shall deposit with tile City of Temecula, a cl|eck or money
order equaling the sum of $.25 cents per square foot as
mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be
submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
RE: PP 122 Page
Flnal conditions will be addressed when building plans are
reviewed in the Building and Safety Office.
All questions regarding the meaning of conditions shall be re-
ferred to the Planning Division staff.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
RECEIVED OCi I 8 1993
STATUE OF CALI~:C~NIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8. P,O. BOX 231
SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 92402
TDD (714) 383-4609
October 11, 1990
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. C.~vemo,'
Development Review
08-Riv-15-6.3
Your Reference:
PP 122
Planning Department
City Hall
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
· ha. yo. for the opportunit to Rs iew the propose iE ' '
located westside of Ynez Road south of Solana Way in the city of
Rancho California.
We would like the opportunity to review a copy of the conceptual
plan(s) regarding this proposal at your earliest convenience.
If any work is necessary within the state highway right of
the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the
Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work.
way,
If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Nahro
Saoud/Mr. Nelson Manlolo of our Development Review Section at
(714) 383-4384.
TIM CHOWDHURY
c pm n
n O
PP
(~gur Re£ere~ce)
~"/~Pla~ ~hec~er
CALTRANS DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW FORM
· I I lcto
Date
15-
(Co ~te PM)
WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE:
__ Constr~ztic~fD~molition within present or proposed State right of ~ey should be investigated for
potential ba~rdo~s ~este (asbestos, petrochemical s, etc.) and mitigated as per requirerents of
regulatory agencies.
/When plans are submitted, pleese conform to the requireTents of the attached '~andout". ~ will
expedite the re~ie~ process ar~ time required for Plan Check.
Although the traffic and drainage generated by this proposal do not appesr to have a significant effect
cn the state hi~jo-~ay system, consideration n~st be given to the c~tive effect of continued develoment
in this are~. .Any measures necessary to mitigate the cumulative impact of traffic and drainage shall be
provided prior to or with development of tjne area that necessitates them.
__ It appeers that tJ~ traffic and drainage generated by this proposal could have a significant effect on
the state highway system of the are. Any measures necessary to initiate the traffic and drainage
~--~ects sba] ] be included with the development.
This portion of state highway is imzluded in the Califonda 2,~star Plan of State Highways Eligible'
for C~fici81 Sc~c i~gh~ay ~esignation, and in the future your agency n~y wish to have th{s route
offidal]y desiL~nated as a szate scenic highboy.
__ L'his portion of state hig~}- has been officially designated as a state scenic higb~y, and development
in rJ~is corridor should be c~tible with the scenic hilly concept.
__ It is rec~ ~d tdmt t~_re is considerable public concern about noise levels adjacent to heavily
traveled high~al, s. land de~!oprent, in order to be cc~petible ~ith this concern, ~y require special
aoise attenuaticr~ messures. Develo[ment of property sh6uld include any necessary noise attenuation.
WE REQUESi ~IAT IHE ITEqS CHECKED BELOW BE INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
THIS PROJECT:
Xormal right of way dedication to provide __
half-width on the state highway.
:{ormal stree: improvements to provide__
half-width on the state highway.
C:rb and gu::~r, State Standard __
along the state highway.
Parking shall be prohibited along the state highway by painting the curb red
and/or by the proper placement of "no parking" signs.
__ radius curb returns be provided at intersections with the state highway.
A standard ~eelchair ramp must be provided in the returns.
A positive vehicular bsrrier along the property frontage shall be provided to
limit physical access to the state highway.
W/Vehicular access shall not be developed directly to the state highway,
~Vehicular access to the state highway shall beprovided by existing public road
connections.
Vehicular'access to the state highway shall be provided by __
driveways.
standard
Vehic,,l~r access shall not be provided within of the intersection a~
__ Vehicular access to the state hi~r~y ~ll be provided by a rc~d-type connection.
__ Vehic. l~r a~c~s co[~ecticns shall be paved at least within th~ state ~bio~ay right of ~y.
._ 'Access points to ~ state hit_~ay ~ll be developed in a mmnner that ~dll provide si-~t distance
for __ nrph along rj~e state ~i~ny.
.W.//landscaping along the state higfr,.ay shall be low and forgiving in nature.
__ A left-turn lane, including any necessary widening, shall be provided on t~he state hilly
at
Cor~ideration shall be givea :a d~e provision, or future provision, of signzaiT~tion and lighting
of the intersaction of m;d t/'~ state highly.
__ A traffic study indicating on- and off-site flow patterns and volu~s, propable ~,~sects, and proposed
nd.t,t~s. Lton ;~P_.asutes sh,al I 'be 7epared.
__ Adequate off-strea~. parking, '.rich does not requ~me backing onto the state highway, sha/1 be provided.
__ Parling lot shall be developei in a n~mner that will no~ cause any v~icul~r lrovement cccflicte,
includL-~3 parking stall entra'ce and exit, witl~in of the entrance frcm the state highly.
__ b~dicap parddang ~.n'~ not be ieveloped in the busy driveway entrance area.
Care shall be t2/en ~i~n devei~'ping this property to preserve ~nd perpetuate rl~e existing drajrage
pattern of t_he state higj~ay. ?attic,liar consideration should be given to cunulative irr_reased storm
runoff to insure t-a~ a ~Lig~r,~Cy drau_nage problen is not created.
/~ny nece~c~ry noi_~ mttenuatizr~ ~ball be provided as part of nne develo~.-ant of this property.
P!~_.se refer to anL~LLea adqczanal cc~='ents.
WE REQUEST:
~//A copy of any csniitiens of a;proval or revised approval.
__ A copy of any docu-~nts pro~=_ing additional state hi~ey right of ~y upon recordation of the stop.
WE REQUEST Tile OPPORYUNiYY TO REVIEW DURING THE APPROYAL PROCESS:
Any propose] ~ to f~ard~ar de~--~p this property.
A copy of tj~ traffic or en~i~nmental study.
Ached< print of ~e Parcel cc Tract ~p.
A check print of t~a Plans for. any improvs~ants witJ~ja~ the state bigInky' right of
A d~eck print of rj~e G-ad~ng -:nd Drainage Plans for t/~is property ~A~ea ava~ lable.
October 8, 1990
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
GENERAl SERVICES AGENCY
DR, ALLAN O. GRIESEMER
Director
Mark Rhoades, Planner
Temecula Planning Department
43180 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Lg 6LP._ L . !22/nonEnT c. cP, zgonv
The project is located on the very fossiliferous Pauba Formation. Excavation associated with
development will impact nonrenewable paleontologic resources.
The developer must retain a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to develop a site-specific
program to mitigate impacts to paleontologie resources. This program should include: (1)
monitoring of excavation by a qualified paleontologic monitor; (2) preparation of recovered
specimens, including sediment processing for small vertebrate fossils; (3) curation of specimens
into an established repository; and (4) a report of findings with complete specimen inventory.
Sincerely,
Dr. Allan D. Griesemer
Museums Director
ADG:RER/jr
Wmr
December 20, 1990
Board of D~rectors:
Jeffre} L. Minkler
Stephen M. Billa
Richard D. Steffey
City of Temecula
City Hall
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92390
Water Availability
Parcel Map 234%, Lot 1
Plot Plan 122
APN 921-800-014, 017, 018
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Rancho California Water District. Water sentice, therefore,
would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between
RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Senga Doherty at (714) 676-4101.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Steve Brannon, P. E.
Engineering Manager
F186/jkth636f
cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Robert C. Greqory
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
1177 South Victoria Avenue
Ventura, CA 93003
{805) 6~2-0111
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
October 8, 1990
Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Plot Plan No. 122
6. Location of Proposal:
West side of Ynez Road,
500 feet south of Solana Way
Environmental Impacts
Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\PP122 20
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or reglonally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, includin9, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFR PT\PP122 21
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants { including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
Introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP122 22
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise, Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
i n vol ve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticldes,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement? X
STAFFRPT\PP122 23
Yes Maybe No
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? X
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ __ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X __
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? X __
b. Police protection? X __
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? X __
f. Other governmental services: __ __ X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X
STAFFRPT\PP122 2L~
17.
18.
19.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP122 25
21.
Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? {A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project~s
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP122 26
III
E~rth
1.
Air
2.
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
No. Although the proposed project will result in cut and fill
slopes there will not be changes in the base geologic
substructures. The slopes shall be manufactured and compacted
per the engineer~s requirements and as a result, should not
result in unstable earth conditions.
Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree
and results in soil displacement, compaction and over-covering.
Further analysis will determine if additional mitigations are
required.
No. The proposed site is currently graded and further
development of the proposed project will not require substantial
grading and as a result will not alter the existing topography.
No. There are no unique geologic or physical features on the
site.
Yes. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the
construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are
replanted. The wind erosion impact is considered high and
significant but will be mitigated through minimal grading,
retention of natural vegetation whenever feasible, and use of
watering trucks and hydro-seeding disturbed areas after
grading.
No. There is no body of water near the project site which could
be affected by the proposed project.
Maybe. The project site is located within the AIquist-Priolo
special studies zone. A Geotechnical Report was prepared for
the underlying parcel map. The project is conditioned to comply
with the recommendations set forth in the Geotechnical Report
conducted by Lockwood-Singh F, Associates and dated August 2u,,
1989.
b-co
Maybe. Depending upon the amount of traffic generated by the
project, an increase in carbon monoxide and particulate emissions
will occur. This impact is not considered significant sincethe air
emissions from this project is only an incremental impact to the
area's air quality.
No. The proposed project should not create any objectionable
odors or alter the area's climate.
5TAFFRPT\PP122 27
Water
3, a,d-e.
b-c,9.
u,. a-d.
Animal Life
5. a,c.
No. The proposed project will not affect any body of water. The
closest body of water to the site is Murrieta Creek which is
approximately one mile away.
No. The proposed project will increase the amount of
impermeable surfaces on the site which will reduce the amount of
water absorption. However, the introduction of irrigation to the
site will off-set the water absorption rate. Drainage patterns will
continue to flow to the streets and channels.
No. The proposed project will not interfere with the direction or
rate of flow of ground waters.
No. The proposed project will not affect the public water supply
or system.
Yes. The proposed project is within the Murrieta
Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan and watershed area.
To help mitigate the project's impact, a flood mitigation charge
shall be paid.
No. Although the development of the site will remove any of the
plant species that currently exist on the site, no unique, rare or
endangered species should be affected. New species of plants
will be introduced to the site as par of the landscape
requirements for the project. The addition of the new species is
not considered a negative impact.
The site is not currently used for agricultural purposes.
No. The proposed project is in an area that has been
experiencing urbanizatlon for a number of years. The site is
currently rough graded and it is highly unlikely that an
endangered specie habitates the site.
Maybe. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat Habitat Fee Area. Prior to the issuance of grading permits
for this project, Habitat Conservation fees shall be paid to
mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts.
STAFFRPT\PP122 28
Noise
6.
Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during
construction. Long-term noise impacts will occur due to
increased traffic volumes. This impact is not considered to be
significant since the surrounding land uses are not noise
sensitive.
No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project.
Liqht and Glare
7,
Maybe. The proposed project is located within the Mt. Palmar
Observatory Street Lighting Policy Area which recommends the
use of low pressure sodium vapor (LPSV) lights to help avoid
interference with the Mt. Palomar telescope known as "Skyglow".
The use of LPSV lights will reduce the light and glare produced
by the proposed project.
Land Use
No. The Southwest Area Plan designates the subject site for
Ceneral Commercial. The surrounding land uses are also General
Commercial.
Natural Resources
9. a-b.
No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of
any natural or non-renewable natural resource.
Risk of Upset
10. a.
Maybe. If the automotive tenant uses any hazardous materials in
their operation, a list of hazardous substances and disposal plan
shall be submitted to the City.
No. During construction, it should not be necessary to close any
streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles. If street
or land closure is necessary, it shall be coordinated with the City
and Police Department.
Population
11.
No. The proposed commercial building will generate some jobs
but not a significant amount to alter the area~s population.
STAFFRPT\PP122 29
Housin9
12.
No. The proposed commercial building will not generate a
significant number of jobs to create a demand for additional
housing.
Transportation/Circulation
13. a.
Maybe. The proposed project will generate additional traffic to
and from the site. However, it is not anticipated that this
increase will be significant. The traffic that is generated by the
project may add an incremental impact to the 1-15 interchanges
which are currently operating at capacity during peak hours.
This potential impact may be mitigated by a transportation
improvement mitigation fee.
Yes. The proposed project will require parking to support the
use. The project will need 163 parking spaces. The proposed
plan illustrates spaces.
No. The proposed project's traffic study identified no
substantial impacts on existing transportation systems.
Maybe. The proposed project will improve a portion of Ynez
Road which connects to Rancho California Road, and Winchester
Road.
No. The proposed project will not affect waterborne, rail or air
traffic.
Yes. Any increase in traffic will increase the potential hazards
to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians.
Public Services
lu,. a,b,e.
Yes. The proposed automotive use will require public services
in the areas of police, fire, maintenance of roads, and public
facilities. This impact is not considered significant. The
incremental impact should be evaluated and the appropriate fees
assessed. Property taxes should mitigate the impact and
continuing need for services over the long term.
c,d,f.
No. The project should not have a substantial effect on these
public services.
Ener.cjy
15. a-b.
No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use
or increase in demand of fuel or energy.
STAFFR PT\PP122 30
Utilities
16. a-f,
No, The proposed project requires the use of utilities but will
not require substantial alteration to the exiting systems.
Human Health
17 a-b.
Maybe. If hazardous substances are stored in the service
building, then that may create a potential health hazard. If
hazardous materials will be stored at the site, a plan for their use
and disposal should be submitted to the City, County Health and
County Fire Departments.
Aesthetics
18.
No. The proposed project will not obstruct any scenic vista open
to the public. The elevations of the proposed project are
consistent in architectural materials to the surrounding
buildings.
Recreation
19.
No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses.
Cultural Resources
20. a-d.
No. The subject site has previously been mass graded and it is
unlikely that the project will result in the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological site. If a site is
discovered, an archaeologist or paleontologist should be called on
site to supervise the digging and determine if the site is
significant. The proposed project will not impact any building of
historic significance, affect unique ethnic cultural values or
restrict sacred uses.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21. a-c.
No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the natural
environment, have long term environmental impacts or have
considerable cumulative impacts.
Maybe. If the proposed use warehouses hazardous materials, the
project may cause a health hazard to human beings and wildlife.
If hazardous materials are to be warehoused at the project, a
plan for their use and disposal should be developed and approved
by the City. The project may also have a substantial impact on
the existing transportation system. To mitigate the potential
impacts at the 1-15 Interchanges, a traffic mitigation fee should
be paid.
STAFFRPT\PP122 31
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
X
Date
For
CITY OF TEMECULA
STAFFRPT\PP122 32
E X; H I B I T S
A -- G
STAFFRPT\PP122 33
CITY OF TEMECULA )
' SITE CAL~FOP, N~A
RD
~79
NOT TO
SCALE
VICINITY MAP
"~
CASE NO-'[2,[2'
P.C. DATE
A
CITY OF TEMECULA )
~ poSE D
C
LOCATION 'MAP
r-
CASE NO. ~"'~'
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
/
/
M-M
CZ .1954
CZ 4070
C-I/C-P
CZ 5008
M -SC
CZ 3173
cz 915
CZ 9t5
//"%. "~\"'~
// %.%.%~ 2 \
\
CZ 10 2
,>
/t
ZONE MAP
C-P
M-M
cz 4,oz
>I/C-P
C-P
cz 2555
C-P
CZ 1706
CZ:
r
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
L|
RLI
SWAP MAP
r
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
CASE NO.I;.~I~.?,..
P.C. DATE 2.,ot4'cll
{
F
m
~,~,
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 122
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
~ Traffic Signal Mitigation )
Public Facility
(Library)
Fire Protection
Flood Control
IADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 33
(Planning)
N/A
Condition No. 19
( Engineering )
Condition No.
(Engineering)
N/A
Condition No. 8
IPlanning)
Condition No. 11
I Engineering )
STAFFRPT\PP122 34
ITEM ~3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Dennis Chiniaeff. Planning Commission Chairman
Gary Thornhi)l, Planning Director/~'
February ~, 1991
Plot Plan No. 10579 Revision No. 2,
Request for Continuance
Staff requests that Plot Plan No. 10579, Revision No. 2, be continued to February
25, 1991 in order to address parking concerns for Phase I I of the hotel development.
If the Planning Commission continues this item, the public hearing will need to be
opened for comment.
The hearing will then need to be closed and a motion made for continuance to the date
specifically entertained on the floor.
KC:ks
PLANNING\M62
iTEM
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 4, 1991
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 216 (PP 216)
Prepared By: Charles Ray
Recommendation:
The Planning Department Staff
recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for
Plot Plan No. 216, and
ADOPT Resolution 90- approving
Plot Plan No. 216; based on the
analysis and findings contained in
the Staff Report and subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Ballatore Construction
Markham & Associates
Request for approval to construct a structure of
approximately 12,067+/- gross square feet, to be
used for commercial/office purposes.
North side of Rio Nedo Road south of Via Industria
M-SC ( Manufacturing - Service Commercial )
North: M-SC ~ Manufacturing Service
Commercial )
South: M-SC
East: M-SC
West: M-SC
As existing; no change proposed.
Vacant, graded building pad
STAFFRPT\PP216 1
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant, natural ground cover
Vacant, graded building pad
Vacant, graded building pad
Vacant, graded building pad
Site Area:
Building Area:
1st Floor( Net Leasable Area)
2nd Floor( Net Leasable Area)
Total Net Leasable Area:
Total Cross Leasable Area:
Building Coverage:
Parking Provided:
Auto Spaces ( includes
1 designated loading zone):
Class II bike racks:
1.03 acres (Net)
7,889 sq.ft.
2,597 sq.ft.
10,486 sq.ft.
12,067 sq.ft.
23.5%
45 spaces
3 racks in an
enclosed secured
area
Plot Plan No. 216 ( PP 216) was submitted to the City
Planning Department for consideration on October
31, 1990. Initial Development Review Committee
assessment of the proposal was conducted on
November 21, 1991 at which time the application was
deemed incomplete and minor design revisions were
requested as synopsized below:
1. Provide additional parking/loading zoneis).
Clarify on-site circulation provisions/plan
dimensions.
Provide a brief traffic analysis indicating
potential project impacts.
Additional structural information was
requested to determine proper fire protection
requirements for this project.
Proposed site gradient differentials require
modification in accordance with generally
accepted Engineering standards.
Resolution of the above issues is the primary focus
of the following project analysis.
STAFFRPT\PP216 2
ANALYSIS:
Land Use/Architectural Compatibility
The proposed use is identified as one of those
allowed under the subject slte~s current zoning
designation of manufacturing/service commercial
( Reference Exhibit B ). Additionally, it is
anticipated that like structures and uses will
eventually be constructed adjacent to and in the
vicinity of this proposal; further confirming its
compatibility with neighboring development. The
proposed structure is a modern articulated building
utilizing reflective glass and concrete exterior
finish materials (Reference Exhibits 1.1, 1.2). As
such, the project is considered physically and
technically compatible with current and anticipated
development standards for the proposal site
specifically, and the surrounding area in general.
Site Access
Access to the site is provided by improved,
dedicated rights-of-way [Reference Exhibit A).
Further, the applicant has submitted a brief traffic
analysis addressing potential transportation system
impacts of this proposal, findings and conclusions
of which were accepted by the City Transportation
Engineering Department.
Parkinq/On-Site Circulation
As indicated in the project background discussion,
additional parking was initially requested as a
proposal redesign consideration. Subsequent
discussions with the applicant clarified the basis for
parking as currently provided, i.e., at this time
the project parking requirements are user-specific,
based on the total building area devoted to
relatively passive storage vis-a-vis more intensely
utilized office/commercial activities ( Reference
Exhibits E.1, E.2). On this basis, parking
currently proposed is adequate to support this
project. Further, the applicant has revised the
project's parking configuration to include a
functional loading zone area of adequate size to
support the proposaPs needs.
Primary on-site circulation concerns are addressed
by widening of the project~s main drive aisle
width(s) to 28' minimum in accordance with adopted
Riverside County Fire Department standards.
STAFFRPT\PP216 3
CR:ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
u,.
Resolution
Conditions of Approval
Environmental Assessment
Exhibits
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zonin9 Map
C. SWAP Recommended Land Use
D. Site Plan
E. 1. Floor Plan, 1st Story
2. Floor Plan, 2nd Story
F. Landscape Plan
G. Parcel Map No. 21382
H. Elevations
I. 1. Color Exterior
2. Materials
Fee Check List
STAFFRPT\PP216 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 216 TO
CONSTRUCT 12,067 +/- GROSS SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE BUILDING ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 1.03 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY
NORTHEASTERLY OF RIO NEDO AND VIA INDUSTRIA
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-290-024.
WHEREAS, Ballatore Construction filed Plot Plan No. 216 in accordance
with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plan on February u,, 1991, at which time interested persons
had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECT ION 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty 130) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
STAFFRPT\PP216 8
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
{b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
(1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title,
each of the following:
a ) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 216 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a
reasonable time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
STAFFRPT\PP216 9
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
a) The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
b)
The overall development of the land is
designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms
to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical
development of the surrounding property.
12 ) The Planning Commission, in approving theproposed
Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 216 will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed
in a reasonable time and in accordance with
State law. The project, as proposed,
conforms with existing applicable city zoning
and development ordinances. Further, the
proposal is characteristic of similar
development approved by the City to date.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to, or interference with
the City's future General Plan, if the
proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with
the plan. The project is of insignificant scale
in context of the broad goals and directives
anticipated in the City's General Plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws. Reference
local Ordinances No. 3~,8, ~,60; and California
Governmental Code Sections 65000-66009
{Planning and Zoning Law).
d)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use.
Adequate site circulation, parking, and
landscaping are provided; as well as
sufficient area to appropriately construct the
proposed structure, reference Exhibits D and
F.
STAFFR PT\PP216 10
e)
The project, as designed and conditioned,
will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare; nor will it adversely impact the built
or natural environment as determined in the
Initial Environmental Assessment of this
proposal. Reference the attached project
Conditions of Approval and Initial
Environmental Study, Attachments 2 and 3
respectively.
f)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area. The project
conforms with applicable land use and
development regulations, and reflects design
aspects currently existing in the proposaPs
general vicinity.
g)
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic. The project
site's primary frontage is on Via Industria, a
dedicated City right-of-way currently
undergoing necessary improvements prior to
its acceptance within the City Maintained
Road System.
h)
The design of the project together with the
type of supporting improvements are such
that they are not in conflict with easements
for access through, or use of the property
within the proposed project. Reference the
approved parcel map design i Exhibit G) vis-
a-vis the project site plan in question
{ Exhibit D) .
i)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
incorporated by reference. Supporting
documentation is attached.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
STAFFRPT\PP216 11
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the
proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration,
therefore, is hereby granted,
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 216 to construct 12,067 +/- square feet of commercial/office building located
approximately northeasterly of Rio Nedo and Via Industrla and known as Assessor's
Parcel No. 909-290-024 subject to the project Conditions of Approval, Attachment
No. 2, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of February, 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 4th day of February, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STAFFRPT\PP216 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 216
Project Description: Request to construct a
2-story 12,067 square foot commercial/office
structure on a 44,770 square foot site.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-290-02~,
Plannin.q Department
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for construction of a 2-story
12,067 +/- square foot commercial/office structure.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan
No. 216. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such
claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate
fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two ~2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the baginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two ~2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the baglnnlng of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on February 15, 1993.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 216 marked Exhibit D, or as amended by these
conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering DepartmentJs Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
STAFFRPT\PP216 13
10.
11.
12.
The applicant shall comply with the Building and Safety Department~s
Conditions of Approval which are included herein.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section
of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Department's transmittal dated
November 29, 1990, which are included herein.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of
Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted tothe
Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements
of Ordinance No. 348, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shadin9 plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten 110) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to 9row higher than thirty (30)
inches.
A minimum of LI~ parking spaces and 1 loading zone shall be provided. Parking
shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit D. The parking area
shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3
inches on q inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 2 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on
Exhibit D. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be
identified by a permanently affixed raflectorized sign constructed of porcelain
on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of
Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and
shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height
if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade,
or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished
grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing
placards or license plates issued for physically
handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's
expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at __
or by telephone "
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall
have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in
blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size.
STAFFRPT\PP216 14
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the followin9 agencies:
Plannin9 Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
School District
Fire Department
Prior to the issuance of buildln9 permits, the following additional plans shall
be submitted for Planning Department approval:
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans.
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by
the Plannin9 Director prior to occupancy.
Buildin9 elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibit H.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibit H, 1.1, and 1.2 (Elevations,
Color/Materials Exhibits).
Any proposed roof-mounted equipment shall be screened in accordance with
materials/methodologies approved by the City Planning Department.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits. As a minimum, each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall
be made with masonry block and a steel 9ate which screens the bins from
external view.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along
streets and within the parking areas.
All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans
submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval
and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No.
655.
Three ~3) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as
approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project
area.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, and unless previously paid in
conjunction with approvals/permits issued for Parcel Map No. 21382, the
applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by
that ordinance which is based on the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for
development. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of
a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by
Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat
Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
STAFFRPT\PP216 15
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
25.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting
and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the
Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation systemshall beproperly constructed
/and in good working order.
26.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
27.
Within forty-eight ~,8) hours of the approval of the project, the
applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check
or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand,
Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One
Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ~ $1,250.00 ) fee, in compliance with AB
3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711 .l~(d){2) plus the Twenty-
Five Dollar ~$25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the
Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152
and lq Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight {~8) hour
period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section
711.q{c).
28.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
En.qineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
29. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
STAFFRPT\PP216 16
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
30.
The developer shall submit four lu,) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2u?x36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
31.
The developer shall submit four Ju..) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
32.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-d-
way.
33.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted
through the undersidewalk drains.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
35.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
36.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
PRIOR TO iSSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
37.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards
and shall be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County
Standard ~00 and ~01 I curb sidewalk).
STAFFR PT\PP216 17
38.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
Department of Buildinq and Safety
39.
The applicant shall fill out an application for final inspection. Allow two (2)
weeks processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final
inspection.
Applicable school fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits.
Fire Department
With respect to the Conditions of Approval regarding the above referenced plot plan,
the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided
in accordance with Riverside County Ordinances and/or recagnized fire protection
standards:
The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial building using the procedure established in
Ordinance 5~6.
Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 GPM
for a two ( 2 ) hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must
be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
The required fire flow shall be available from a super fire hydrant
16"xu,"x21 / 2"x21 / 2" ) located at the driveway entrance.
Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to submit written Certification from
the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the
existing water system is capable of delivering 2000 GPM fire flow for a two ( 2 )
hour duration at 20 PSi residual operating pressure. If a water system
currently does not exist, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to
provide them.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process
to reflect changes in design, construction type, area separation or built - in
fire protection measures.
STAFFRPT~PP216 18
46.
Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a fire flow
of 1500 GPM or greater. The post indicator valve and fire department
connection shall be located to the front, within fifty (50) feet of a hydrant,
and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the
building(s) will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title
page of the building plans.
Install a supervised water flow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be
submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation, as
required by the Uniform Building Code.
48.
In lieu of fire sprinkler requirements, building(s) must be area separated into
square foot compartments, approved by the Fire Department, as per Section
505 (el of the Uniform Building Code.
49.
A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinkled must appear
on the title page of the building plans.
50.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code. Low-level Exit Signs, where exit sign are required by Section
331/4. (a).
51. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
52.
install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Contact
a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
53.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be
responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00 to the
City of Temecula for plan check fees.
54.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall
deposit with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum
of 25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This
amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fee.
55.
Blue-dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to
indicate location of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the
street directly in line with fire hydrants.
56°
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the
Building and Safety Office.
Department of Health
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No. 216 and has no
objections. Prior to buildinq plan approval, the following are required:
57. "Will - serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewer districts.
STAFFRPT\PP216 19
58.
59.
If there are to be any food establishments, three complete sets of plans for
each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a
finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with
the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law.
If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the
Environmental Health Services Hazardous Materials Management Branch (Jon
Mohoroski, 358-5055), will be required indicating that the project has been
cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks.
b. Hazardous Waste Generator Services.
c. Hazardous Waste Disclosure {in accordance with AB 2185).
d. Waste reduction management.
STAFFRPT\PP216 2O
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
II
Backqround
1. Name of Proponent:
Ballatore Construction
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
27315 Jefferson Avenue
Temecula, CA 92390
Date of Environmental
Assessment:
November 5, 1990
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
Plot Plan No. 216 (PP 216)
6. Location of Proposal:
Northeasterly of Via Industria
and Rio Nedo
Environmental Impacts
Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. )
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
X
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
X
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
X
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
X
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
X
STAFFRPT\PP216 21
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Exposure of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements, in either marine or
fresh waters?
Substantial changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Alterations to the course or flow
of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface
water in any water body?
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Yes Maybe N__9o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP216 22
Change in the quantity of ground
waters, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or number of any native species of
plants {including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare, or endangered species
of plants?
introduction of new species of
plants into an area of native
vegetation, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species?
Substantial reduction in acreage
of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species of animals
{birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Yes Maybe N__9.o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP216 23
10.
11.
12.
13.
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
Substantial depletion of any non-
renewable natural resource?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal
involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances { including,
but not limited to, oil, pestlcides,
chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset conditions?
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter
the location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of
an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect
existing housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP216 24
15.
16.
Yes Maybe No
b. Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking? X __
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems? __ __ X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods? __ X
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic? X
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X __
Public Services. Will the proposal have
substantial effect upon, or result in a
need for new or altered governmental
services in'any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? X __
b. Police protection? X __
c. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational
facilities? X
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads? X __
f. Other governmental services: __ __ X
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel
or energy? __ __ X
b. Substantial increase in demand
upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new
sources of energy? __ __ X
Utilities. Will the proposal result in
a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? X __
STAFFRPT\PP216 25
17.
18.
19.
20.
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
Human Health. Will the proposal
result in:
Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard ( excluding
mental health)?
Exposure of people to potential
health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to
public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the
alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building,
structure, or object?
Does the proposal have the potential
to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
STAFFRPT\PP216 26
Yes Maybe N_9o
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environ-
mental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one
which occurs in a relatively brief,
definitive period of time while long-
term impacts will endure well into
the future. )
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? {A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant. )
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? __
X
X
X
STA FFR PT\PP216 27
III
Earth
1.a.
1.b.
1 .c,d.
1.e.
1.f.
1.9.
Air
2.a,b.
2.co
Water
3.a.
Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation
No. The project, while located in a potential subsidence zone, will not
in itself create unstable earth conditions. Further, construction is not
proposed at a depth sufficient to affect geologic substructures.
Yes. Compaction and overcovering of soil is necessary to effect the
construction proposed. However, the limited scale of this proposal
precludes any significant impacts on surface soils.
No. No unique topographic or geologic features exist. No significant
change in topography is proposed.
No. Insignificant change in regional surface erosion can be expected
if this project is eventually realized, i.e. , additional on-site structures
and paving will undoubtedly reduce erosion at the project site.
Resultant environmental impacts are nominal.
No. No construction is proposed that would logically affect beach
sands; nor should the project produce deposition/erosion which may
modify stream channels or lake beds.
Maybe. The project lies within a potential ground subsidence zone.
Possible ground failure hazards are mitigated through proper site
design and facility construction as specified in Geologic Report No.
· and the 1988 edition {latest available) of the Uniform Building
Code IUBC).
No. Nominal addition of localized air pollutants may result from
increased auto traffic accessing the project site. Regional effects are
considered nominal.
Maybe. Microclimatic changes may result in the immediate vicinity of
the project site. Based on the scale of this proposal, environmental
effects are anticipated to be largely undetectable.
No. The proposed structure is not located within defined marine or
fresh water flows. No effect on these environmental assets is
anticipated.
STAFFRPT\PP216 28
3.b.
3.d,e.
3.f,g.
3.h.
Plant Life
4.a-d.
Animal Life
5.a-c.
Yes. Currently permeable ground will be rendered impervious as a
result of this proposal. Consequently, surface runoff and absorption
rates on the project site itself will change substantially. However,
proper site design and construction should mitigate any potential
adverse impacts.
No. The project site is not within a known flood hazard area; no
identified potential adverse impacts.
Maybe, increased runoff from the project site may nominally increase
surface levels and turbidity of off-site bodies of water. However, due
to the limited project scale proposed, this possibility is unlikely.
Maybe. Reduced permeation at the project site may eventually affect
underlying groundwater. Possible environmental alteration is unlikely,
as are negative impacts,
No. No intense water usage is proposed nor anticipated as a result of
project implementation,
No. No quantities of native plants to speak of, are currently present
on, or in the vicinity of the subject site, including species identified as
'irate or endangered". Further, new species which may be introduced
cannot be considered invasive because of the referenced lack of native
varieties. Similarly, no impacts are anticipated on agricultural assets.
No. Minor losses of small common species, e.g., lizards, insects,
rodents, and their urban habitats may result from this project.
Numerically and qualitatively, these losses should be environmentally
insignificant. Further, if not previously paid, the applicant is
required to submit Stephen~s Kangaroo Rat habitat procurement fees in
an amount specified by City ordinance. Such monies are to be used for
purchase of suitable habitat for the Kangaroo Rat as it is gradually
displaced due to generalized development of the Temecula Valley, to
which this proposal contributes incrementally.
Noise
6. a. Maybe.
6.b. No.
Minor increases in ambient noise levels may occur
subsequent to project implementation and commercial
occupancy of the project site. Aural impacts will be
insignificant.
STAFFRPT\PP216 29
Liqht and Glare
No. While the project could potentially impact night skies, the proposal
is required to comply with applicable City/Palomar Observatory lighting
policies and ordinanceIs); which address potential night-sky lighting
impacts of development proposals that might logically affect activities
of the Mr. Palomar Astronomical Observatory.
Land Use
No. The proposed construction of a two-story commercial building is
consistent with those uses previously planned and approved for the
project site.
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
No. The proposal is of limited scale and would not logically deplete
substantial renewable or non-renewable natural resources.
Risk of Upset
10.a,b.
No. The proposal does not entail storage or use of hazardous
substances; nor is the subject site within a designated
emergency/evacuation plan movement corridor.
Population
11.
No. The project does not contain population relocation elements.
Housinq
12.
No. No housing is proposed to be added nor deleted.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a,c.
No. The project consists of nominal additional commercial construction.
Logically, traffic impacts should also be nominal.
13.b.
Yes. In compliance with City ordinance, the project is required to, and
does provide a total of ~,5 additional off-street, improved parking
spaces as referenced in the proposaPs Conditions of Approval
I attached ).
13.d.
Maybe. The project may attract additional traffic to the subject site
upon its implementation. Impactsareexpectedtobeinsignificantgiven
the proposaPs limited scale.
13.e.
No. The project is not in a location which would logically affect
waterborne, tall or air traffic.
STAFF R PT\PP216 30
13.f.
Yes. Any increase in traffic naturally increases the possibility of
traffic accidents. Impacts are likely to be unnoticeable in view of the
proposal's limited scope.
Public Services
14.a,b.
Yes. New commercial development, even of the limited scale proposed,
generates at least nominal increased demands for police and fire
protection services, utility provisions and, indirectly, schools.
Mitigation is realized through assessment districts, property taxes, and
similar funding mechanisms.
14.d.
Maybe. Construction is not proposed which would directly impact
schools or parks. However, the applicant is required by state law to
contribute applicable school fees as partial mitigation for secondary
impacts on school systems resulting from commercial development.
14.e.
Yes. Nominal increases in road maintenance activities in the immediate
vicinity of the proposal may be required due to minor traffic increases
anticipated. Mitigation of such impacts are as specified by the City
Engineering Department in the project's Conditions of Approval.
14.f.
No. Impacts on other governmental services have not been identified
at this time.
Enerqy
15.a,b. No. Reference Item Nos. 9.a. and b.
Utilities
16.a-f.
Yes. Nominal service line extensions/increased demands can be
expected for the utilities referenced. No significant impacts are
anticipated.
Human Health
17.a,b.
No. The project does not include introduction of potential health
hazards to the region; nor are there existing health hazards identified
at the project site.
Aesthetics
18.
No. Obtrusive/offensive visual elements are not proposed. Further,
the application has been reviewed for architectural compatibility and
complies with the City's applicable guidelines and standards in this
regard.
STAFFRPT\PP216 31
Recreation
19o
No. Recreational opportunities are neither created nor diminished as
a result of this project. No impacts anticipated.
Cultural Resources
20.a,c,d.
No. Construction is not proposed which could affect archaeological,
religious or cultural assets.
20.b.
No. The proposal is not within an identified historic
preservation/conservation district. As such, no impacts on the
existing character or historic assets in the region are likely, nor have
they been identified. Any potential visual impacts have been mitigated
through proper site and architectural design of the proposal.
Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance
21 .a-d. No. Reference items 1 through 20.
STAFFR PT\PP216 32
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NECATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
November 5, 1990
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
X
STAFFRPT\PP216 33
ATTACHMENT
EXHIBITS
STAFFRPT\PP216 34
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
VICINITY MAP
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
C~rJA RO
MAP ) O. ~' Z~'
P.C. DATE ')-; '~l
CITY OF TEMECULA ~ -'
SWAP MAP
P.c. oATS
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
PRO ~EL'7 SU~MARY
AI)DR
LEGAl, Eg~-SCR I PTION
VICINITY MAP
A-I
CASE NO.
EXHIBIT NO.
kP.C. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
FLOORPLAN )
EXHIBIT NO. ~-t._..._-
~,P,C, DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA )
FLOORPLAN
EXHIBIT NO. ~.2,~
DATE ?-,-'~'~1 J I
EXHiStT "0.
~P.C. OATS
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
PAR. 13
'.f~,~,'~Z,-~,~.,,~ ~
~,,~,.,~,~
EXHIBIT NO. ~
~P.C. DATE'/Z'q'~I2
CITY OF TEMECULA )
· C~..~T~ UVATiCM~d
~"~ASE NO. "
ELEVATIONS ) EXHIBIT NO. ~.~..*~
~,P.C. DATE /
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 216
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
~ K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
lQuimby)
Public Facility
{ Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
(Traffic Signal Mitigation)
Public Facility
~ Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 23
~ Planning Department)
NJA
Condition No. 38
( Engineering Department)
Condition No. 36
( Engineering Department)
N/A
Condition No.
( Fire Department)
Condition No. 33
( Engineering Department)
STAFFRPT\PP216 35
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
February L~, 1991
Case No.: Plot Plan No. 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation: ADOPT Resolution No. 91-
approving Plot Plan No. 138,
Revised Plot Plan No. 9683.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
John and Christine McCusker
John and Christine McCusker
Revised permit to allow for a modular classroom.
Southwest corner of Metcedes and Third Street
C-1/C-P
North: C-P-S
South: C-I/C-P
East: C-P-S
West: C- 1 / C-P
Not requested.
Day Care Center
North:
South:
East:
West:
I General Commercial )
{Scenic Highway
Commercial )
I General Commercial )
(Scenic Highway
Commercial )
( General Commercial )
Vacant and Commercial
Vacant and Commercial
Vacant
Commercial
STAFFRPT\PP138 1
PROJECT STATISTICS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
BACKGROUND:
Total Acreage:
Building Sites:
No. 1 L18'x20' (Existing)
No. 2 35'x~,0' iExisting)
No. 3 19'x26' (Existing)
No. ~, 27'x78' (Existing)
No. 5 36~x60' (Proposed)
Total Building Area:
0.86
960 sq.ft.
1,LI00 sq.ft.
LIg~, sq .ft.
2, lU, 6 sq.ft.
2,160 sq.ft.
7,160 sq.ft.
The applicant is seeking approval to allow for a
2,160 square foot modular classroom, in conjunction
with an existing day-car center, for 2LJ students
and one instructor on 0.86 acres located on the
southwest corner of Metcedes and Third Street.
Currently there are four J~l) permitted buildings
on-site and range from k~9~, to 2,1~,6 square feet,
totaling approximately 5,000 square feet of building
area. With the existing non-permitted building, the
building area is 7,160 square feet.
The subject modular classroom was installed without
prior contact or approval from the Architectural
Control Committee for Old Town Temecula and
without a City building permit, which includes a
clearance from the Planning Department. An
application was subsequently submitted to the City
of Temecula on August 23, 1990 for the subject
modular classroom and presented to the Formal
Development Review Committee ( DRC ) on January 3,
1991.
Since the submittal date, Staff has been in direct
contact with the applicant and has recommended
they contact the Old Town Temecula Architectural
Control Committee to discuss their project.
On November 19, 1990, the Committee held a special
meeting at Kid's World (subject site) to review the
existing modular. The Committee found the modular
to be non-conforming in terms of architectural
appropriateness; and in use without a Permit of
Occupancy. The Committee also suggested that the
modular be removed or modified to meet
architectural recommendations that were to be
suggested from the Committee after another
discussion with the applicants, which was never
scheduled.
STAFFRPT\PP138 2
ANALYSIS:
The Planning Staff held a meeting with the
Committee on January 15, 1991 to discuss their
major concerns regarding the proposal. At the
meeting, it was determined that the Committee had
concerns regarding modular structures within the
Old Town Temecula Historic District. They prefer
permanent structures with old western themes to
enhance the character of the Old Town Historic
District. Nevertheless, the Committee was willing
to meet with the applicant's architect to recommend
architectural alternatives to enhance the modular in
order to have it represent the character of the Old
Town in conformance with the Old Town Historic
District.
The applicant since then has met with the Committee
and has incorporated modification per the
recommendations of the Committee and Planning
Staff in order to address the Committee's concerns
regarding architectural appropriateness and
permanent status of the structure.
Desiqn Consideration
Staff has reviewed the architectural design of the
other existing structures within the day-care center
and has determined that the existing modular is
consistent with the established architectural design
of the day-care center, which is traditional in
design and consists of grayish-bluish wood siding,
white wood window trims and dark grey asphalt roof
shingles. The applicant has proposed to modify the
subject structure by extending roof overhangs with
white 12" fascias and attaching a wood trellis
supported by white columns to be placed along the
east and north side of the structure, in order to
enhance the visual appearance from Third Street
and Metcedes Street. Furthermore, the applicant is
willing to incorporate shutters or similar fixtures
around windows of the structure and is open to any
further design suggestions from both Planning Staff
and the Old Town Temecula Architectural
Committee.
The Building and Safety Department has reviewed
the proposal, and has determined that the existing
temporary foundation is inadequate for a classroom.
Therefore, a Condition has been formulated to
address plans for permanent foundation with
consideration to Seismic Zone No. u,, which are
STAFFRPT\PP138 3
GENERAL PI_AN AND
SWAP CONSISTENCY:
Parkin9
The existing day-care center is designed with seven
17) parking spaces. Six (6) standard parking
spaces and one handicap space are provided
adjacent to Third Street. The project is proposing
an additional five ( 5 ) off-stree~ parking spaces with
access from Metcedes Street I see Exhibit C) . Staff
has reviewed the proposed parking layout and has
found the circulation pattern to be adequate for the
project.
Landscapinq
The applicant has submitted a conceptual landscape
plan to compliment the existing modular classroom,
consistin9 of various vegetation and trees, rangin9
from 1 to 15 gallons (See landscape plan). Most of
the landscaping is found along Third Street and
Metcedes Street aiding as a buffer. Furthermore,
the applicant is proposing three (3) 24" box Morus
Alba (fruitless) trees adjacent to Third Street. The
center portion of the subject site will be composed
of rescue type Marathon il lawn. Staff has
determined that the proposed landscape design is
acceptable. A detailed landscape plan will be
submitted for approval by the Planning Department
prior to the issuance of building permits.
The intended use of the existing modular, which in
this case is a classroom in conjunction with an
existing day-care center, is consistent with the
Southwest Area Community Plan designation of
Commercial, which includes schools. In addition,
Staff finds it probable that this project will be
consistent with the new General Plan when it is
adopted. However, although the Old Town
Temecula Architectural Control Committee, which is
an advisory committee, requests that a permit of
occupancy be denied and that the structure be
removed, based on the building regulations set
forth in Old Town. Staff has reviewed the
architectural design and use of the existing
structures and has determined that the project is
consistent with the existing approved school.
STAFFRPT\PP138 5
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINAT)ON:
FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Section 15303 of the California
Environmental Act, the existing modular classroom
is categorically exempt from the requirement for
environmental review due to the size and proposed
USe .
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 138 Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 will
be consistent with the City's future General
Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable
time and in accordance with State law, due to
the fact that the project is consistent with
existing site development standards in that it
proposes articulated architectural features
and site amen(ties commensurate with existing
and anticipated commercial development
standards.
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due
to the fact that the project is in conformance
with existing and anticipated land use and
design guidelines and recommendations as
discussed in the project analysis.
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with
those uses listed as "allowed" within the
project site's existing C-11C-P (General
Commercial land use designation.
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use, due
to the fact that adequate area is provided for
all proposed structures; area for adequate
landscaping is provided along the projects
public and private frontages; and the
internal circulation/parking plan should not
create traffic conflicts as design provisions
include driveways and parking areas in
conformance with adopted City standards.
STAFFRPT\PP138 6
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions
stated in the approval are based on mitigation
measures necessary to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts of the project as
discussed in the above Findings, Facts, and
body of the Staff Report.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties, due to the fact that the
proposal is similar in compatibility with
surrounding land uses. Commercial facilities
are currently existing adjacent to the
proposal.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area, due to the
fact that the proposed project is consistent
with the current zoning of the subject site
(C-I/C-P; General Commercial), and also
consistent with the adopted ,Southwest Area
Community Plan (SWAP) designation of
commercial.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact
that the project currently proposes a circular
driveway accessing Mercedes Street which
have been determined to be adequate by the
City Engineer,
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project, due to the fact that this is clearly
represented in the site plan and the project
analysis.
STAFFRPT\PP138 7
10.
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps and exhibits referenced in the attached
Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of
Approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 91 -
approving Plot Plan No. 138, Revised
Plot Plan No. 9683; based on the
analysis and findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
RA:ks
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Exhibits
A. Location Map
B. Zoning Map
C. SWAP Map
D. Exterior Elevations
u,. Architectural Review Committee Correspondence
5. Large Scale Plans
STAFFRPT\PP138 8
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 138
REVISED PLOT PLAN NO, 9683 TO ALLOW FOR A 2,160
SQUARE FOOT MODULAR CLASSROOM IN CONJUNCTION
WITH AN EXISTING DAY CARE CENTER ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 0.86 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
CORNER OF MERCEDES AND THIRD STREET AND KNOWN
AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-040-01u, AND 922-040-
015
WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. John McCusker filed Plot Plan No. 138 Revised
Plot Plan No. 9683 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning,
Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
pertaining to said Plot Plan on February 4, 1991, at which time interested persons
had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report
regarding the Plot Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECT ION 1. Findin.qs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following findings:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
ll ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
12 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
STAFFRPT\PP138 9
(a)
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
~C)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP" ) was adopted
prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and
meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government
Code, to wit:
{1 ) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
(2) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan
No. 138 Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 proposed
will be consistent with the general plan
proposal being considered or studied or
which will be studied within a reasonable
time.
b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
STAFFRPT\PP138 10
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be
approved unless the following findings can be made:
a)
The proposed use must conform to all the
General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City
ordinances.
b)
The overall development of the land is
designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms
to the logical development of the land and is
compatible with the present and future logical
development of the surrounding property.
(2) ThePlanningCommission, inapprovingtheproposed
Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit:
a)
There is a reasonable probability that Plot
Plan No. 138 Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 will
be consistent with the City~s future General
Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable
time and in accordance with State law, due to
the fact that the project is consistent with
existing site development standards in that it
proposes articulated architectural features
and site amenitles commensurate with existing
and anticipated commercial development
standards.
b)
There is not a likely probability of
substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use
is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due
to the fact that the project is in conformance
with existing and anticipated land use and
design guidelines and recommendations as
discussed in the project analysis.
c)
The proposed use or action complies with
State planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with
those uses listed as "allowed" within the
project site's existing C-1/C-P {General
Commercial land use designation.
STAFFRPT\PP138 11
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
The site is suitable to accommodate the
proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation
patterns, access, and intensity of use. due
to the fact that adequate area is provided for
all proposed structures; area for adequate
landscaping is provided along the projects
public and private frontages; and the
internal circulation/parking plan should not
create traffic conflicts as design provisions
include driveways and parking areas in
conformance with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will
not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions
stated in the approval are based on mitigation
measures necessary to reduce or eliminate
potential adverse impacts of the project as
discussed in the above Findings, Facts, and
body of the Staff Report.
The project is compatible with surrounding
land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a
compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties, due to the fact that the
proposal is similar in compatibility with
surrounding land uses. Commercial facilities
are currently existing adjacent to the
proposal.
The proposal will not have an adverse affect
on surrounding property, because it does not
represent a significant change to the present
or planned land use of the area. due to the
fact that the proposed project is consistent
with the current zoning of the subject site
(C-I/C-P; General Commercial), and also
consistent with the adopted Southwest Area
Community Plan ( SWAP ) designation of
commercial.
The project has acceptable access to a
dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact
that the project currently proposes a circular
driveway accessing MerGedes Street which
have been determined to be adequate by the
City Engineer.
STAFFRPT\PP138 12
i)
The design of the project and the type of
improvements are such that they are not in
conflict with easements for access through or
use of the property within the proposed
project· due to the fact that this is clearly
represented in the site plan and the project
analysis.
j)
That said findings are supported by minutes,
maps and exhibits referenced in the attached
Staff Report· Exhibits. and Conditions of
Approval.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan
proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site· and
is compatible with the present and future development of the
surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
Pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act,
the project is categorically exempt from the requirement for environmental review.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Plot
Plan No. 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 to allow for a 2,160 square foot modular
classroom in conjunction with an existing day-care center located on the south
corner of Metcedes and Third Street and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 922-040-01/4
and 922-040-015 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
· 199
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
STAFFRPT\PP138 13
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the u, th day of February, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STA FFR PT\PP138 1 u,
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No: 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683
Project Description: 2,160 Square
FootModularClassroom
Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-040-014 and 015
Planninq Department
The use hereby permitted by this revised plot plan is for the placement of a
2,160 square foot portable classroom located on the south corner of Mercedes
and Third Street.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or
proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees
to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its
advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Revised Plot
Plan No. 138. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will
cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in
the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise,
it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial
construction contemplated by this approval within the two {2) year period
which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of
substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall
expire on February lu,, 1993.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as
shown on Plot Plan No. 138, Revised Plot Plan No. 9683 marked Exhibit C, or
as amended by these conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly
upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of
Approval which are included herein.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, a certificate of Parcel Merger shall
be recorded by the County Recorder through the Planning Department for
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 922-040-01~, and 922-040-015.
STAFFRPT\PP138 15
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three ~3) copies of a
Parking, Landscaping, I rricJatlon, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department of approval. The location, number, genus, species, and
container size of the plants shall be shown.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An
automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be
maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten ~ 10) feet of an
entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty ~30)
inches.
A minimum of 5 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section
18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. Five { 5 ) parking spaces shall be
provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit C. The parking area shall be
surfaced with {asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4
inches of Class II base. ) (Decomposed granite compacted to a minimum
thickness of three 13) inches treated with not less than 1/2 gallon per square
yard of penetration coat oil, followed within six months by an application of
1/4 gallon per square yard of seal coat oil. )
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance
and/or permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Engineering Department
Environmental Health
School District
Fire Department
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on
Exhibits A and B.
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial
conformance with that shown on Exhibits A and B {Color Elevations).
No roof-mounted equipment shall be permitted on any building within the
project site.
Landscape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a minimum height
of six (6) feet at maturity along Metcedes.
All existing specimen trees on the subject property shall be preserved
wherever feasible. Where they cannot be preserved they shall be relocated
or replaced with specimen trees as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts
to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the
installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved
plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Building and Safety.
STAFFRPT\PP138 16
18.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the portable classroom, all
required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in
a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall
be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall
be properly constructed and in good workln9 order.
19.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or
any use allowed by this permit.
2O.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain a
Certificate of Historic Appropriateness from the Planning Director. Said
Certificate shall be obtained by submitting, to the Planning Department, a
completed application for a Certificate of Historic Appropriateness
accompanied with a filing fee of $100.00.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ANY OTHER SUBMITTAL:
21. Provide documentation that alley has been vacated.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADINC PERMITS:
22. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
23.
The developer shall submit four (1~) prints of a comprehensive grading plan
to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform
Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these
Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2LP'X36" mylar by a
Registered Civil Engineer.
5TAFFRPT\PP138 17
The developer shall submit four (~,) copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
25.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
26.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
27.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for
traffic signal impact.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
28.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
29.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public faci lities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in affect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated {assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
Buildin.q and Safety Department
For submittal of plans for Plan Review, the following information will be required:
30. Provide fully dimensioned plans for Plan Review (2 sets).
31.
Provide engineered wet stamped plans for permanent foundation with
consideration to Seismic Zone No. I~.
32. Provide reflected ceiling plan.
STAFFRPT\PP138 18
33. Provide Manufacturers Specification Manual.
3~,. Provide site grade differentials for handicapped.
35.
The applicant shall fill out an Application for Final Inspection, allow two weeks
processing time to obtain all required clearances prior to final inspection..
Riverside County Fire Department
36.
The existing water mains and fire hydrants located along the property
frontage will provide sufficient fire flow for the additional building.
37.
The existing fire alarm system shall be updated to provide manual pull stations
in each room with alarm bells located so as to be audible from any space within
all buildings. Periodic fire alarms will be conducted with records maintained
for fire department review.
38.
Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall have received clearance for the
increased occupant load and certification of a fire safety inspection for the
facility.
STAFF R PT\PP138 19
CITY OF TEMECULA )
LOCATION 'MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
SP ZONE
CZ 5105
( SPECIFIC
ZONE MAP
CASE NO.
P.C. DATE
,'=~". ~"'~
CITY OF TEMECULA _)
IlL
SWAP MAP )
,,~ ~ CITY OF TEMECULA ~
ELEVATION
"~
CASE NO, ~
EXHIBIT NO, /4.
~P,C, DATE F~'8.
CITY OF TEMECULA )
ELEVATION
CASE NO.
EXHIBIT NO..~
OLD TO~JN TEMECUL{~
ARCIJITECTURAL CONTROL_ COMMITTEE
September 10, 1990
Members presentr Donald Cummins, Dallas Gray, Robert Morris.
Ton>' Tob~n. Bill Harker
The meeting convened at 8:05 a.m. at 28465 Front Street,
Suite 201.
Bob Morris said that he had been approached by a part>,
that is considering rebuilding the old Red School. house
en Main Street that burned clown.
Morris also reported that the people opeYating the
drawn cart iages jn Old Town are interested in convert
the annex to the bank buiJding, al: th~ corner of Front
and Main Streets, back into a blacksmith shop and livery
stable for their horses and carriages.
m
Doc Cummins questioned the mobile unit that has beer',
erected at Kids ~orld on 2nd Street and whether or not
they had a city permit. The matter was never b~r,ught
before the committee for consideration.
Morris reported that the City P]anning Departm~Tfi is n.t~t~3
requiring Tomac to re-file on their planned nell buildi. n,3
because of the changes suggested by the committee. lhe
committee unanimously feels this is an imposit[¢.H~ aud
uncalled for' since there are no structural changes in--
volved, only some external appearance which the conu, ittee
had approved. This again points up th~ need to get with
the Planning Department and educate them on what we aye
trying to accomplish in Old Town.
~ discussion was held on the advantages of extending thp
historic overlay to include Sam Nicks Park and the Fire
Station. ~lso, at the opposite end of town to extend
overlay to include the Butte'r'fieJd Inn and ~estern
Lumber.
6. It ~as suggested ~e get a list of all property owners in
Old Town with names, addresses, and phone numbers.
Meeting adjourned at 9 a.m.
NEXT MEETING will be at Bob Morris' hou-~e, 44050 E1 Prado.
off De Luz and Carrancho Roads on Monday. OctoLler 15st. We
will meet at the Swing Inn fo~ breakfast at 7 a.m. an!J ride
to the meeting with Doc- Cummins.
OI D ~O[4N TEHECtlI_A
ARCI4ITECTURAL CONTROL COHHITTEE
Special Meeting at Kids Hofld
November 19, 1990
Members present: Donald Cummins, Dallas Gray, Bob Norris,
Blll Harker
This meeting at Kids World was called by Chait'r,ml, Ctlml,,jr,'~. t0
look at the mobile unit that was moved onto the property
without the consent of the committee and without a City
permit .
The committee found the bui]ding to be nor,-c:onfo~ming arm]
use without a permit for occupancy. The Edison Company has
not hooked up the electric po~er and electricity is being
provided by a temporary line ~un into the building by the
owner .
It was the committee's decision to turn the matter ovFq to
the City Planning and Building Departments for enforcement oF
the ordinance covering O]d Town Temecula with the suggestion
that the building be removed or modified to meet recommenda--
tions to be forthcoming from the committee after another
discussion with the owners.
7he subject building is located on the south side of Third "
Street near Hercedes Street.
OLD TOWN TEMECULA
ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE
P.O. Box 435
Temecula, CA 92390
November 27, 1990
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92390
Attn: Dennis Chiniaeff, Chairman, Planning Commission
Subj: Mobile Structure at Kids World
As noted in the minutes of the September 10 and November 19
minutes of the Architectural Control Committee {copies
enclosed) the committee has found that the mobile structure
erecte5 at Kids World Preschool & Elementary School, 41956
3rd Street in Old Town Temecula, is in direct violation of
the standards established for buildings in that portion of
the Old Town area covered by the historical overlay.
This structure was put in place on the above referenced
property without prior contact with, or approval of, the
committee and we understand, without a city permit.
To allow this violation to remain will set a precedent that
would severely handicap the committee in carry out its
assigned responsibilities.
Therefore, the Architectural Control Committee requests that
the City of Temecula take immediate and appropriate action to
remedy the situation. We suggest that a permit of occupancy
be denied and that the building regulations in Old Town be
enforced by requiring the structure to be removed.
The committee will be pleased to meet with your body at any
time to answer any questions you may have regarding this
letter.
Sincerely,
Donalc~umins
Chairman
cc: Ccrnmittee Members