Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012395 PC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 2:7, 1995, 6:00 PM Rancho Cafifornia Water District's Board Room 42135 Winchester Road Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Chairmau Ford ROLL Blair, Fahey, Slaven, Webster and Ford 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 Commi.~sioners about an item ,0f listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filed out and ~ed with the Commission 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 1. Approval of Agenda Provide direction to staff regarding the size and design of the proposed signage for Plot Plan No. 248, Yellow Basket. 3. Director's Hearing Update PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Case No: Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 6 Applicant: Church of Christ Location: Southeast comer of Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane Proposal: A church and classrooms to be built in two (2) phases. Environmental Action: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Planner: Matthew Fagan, Assistant P13nner Recommendation: Approval Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Plannor: Recommendation: PA94.0062 Pulte Home Corporation South side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road, 3000 feot east of Winchester Road A request for approval of Amendment No. 2 of Specific Plan No. 213, Silver Hawk, to reduce the density of p|annlug Area No. 11 from Very High Density Residential (14-20 dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Density Residential (4-7 dwelling units per acre) and to prezone this property for future annexation to the City of Temecula. No environmental analysis is required pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Enviromental Quality Act Saied Naaseh Approval 6. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA94.0097, Tentative Parcel Map Planning Application No. PA94.0095, Conditional Use Permit Chris Smith, Land Grant Development Southwesterly Comer of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway The subdivision of an approximately 30 acre site into 12 parcels and the development of a commercial shopping center containing approximately 238,000 square feet of building area. Negative Declaration Craig Ruiz Approve Next meeting: February 6, 1995, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecnia, California. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT 2 ITEM #2 MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning January 23, 1995 Provide direction to staff regarding the size and design of the proposed signage for Plot Plan No. 248, Yellow Basket Restaurant Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff regarding the size and design of the proposed signage for Plot Plan No. 248, Yellow Basket Restaurant BACKGROUND When Plot Plan No. 248 was approved by the Planning Director in September of 1992, and the subsequent extension of time in September of 1994, the applicant did not seek concurrent approval for signage. However, the approved building elevations did delineate sign locations and sign dimensions. Conditions of approval were placed upon the project which required that the construction of the project be consistent with the approved elevations and a separate application for signage would be approved by the Planning Director. Recently, the applicant has provided the Planning Department with proposed signage that is, in staff's opinion, inconsistent with the approved building elevations. The signage exceeds the square footage area depicted on the approved elevations and would result in a change in certain design elements to the building. In addition, staff has concerns relative to the logo design and its viability from Winchester Road. It is the applicant's position that while the elevations did delineate location and dimensions, he should not be held to those requirements as long as the proposed signage meets the maximum size limitations of the City sign ordinance. Therefore, the applicant feels that the signage, as proposed, should be approved. Staff will provide an oral report to the commission on this matter. R:\STAFFRFFX248PP.PC 1/19/95 caf ITEM #3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning January 23, 1995 Director's Hearing Case Update The following cases were heard at Planning Director's Hearings in December, 1994 and Januaxy, 1995: PA94-0109, Minor Public Use Permit - Expansion to an existing appmved church facility PA94-0072, Minor Public Use Permit - Southwest Christian Church PA94-0120, Tentative Parcel Map and PA94-0121, Reversion to Acreage Attachment: 1. Action Agendas for December, 1994 and January, 1995 - Blue Page 2 ATTACItMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETIiNIG DECEMBER 22, 1994 1:30 P1VI TEMECULA CITY HALL - MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and fried with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fried with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA94-0109 - Minor Public Use Permit Don Coop 41765 Rider Way, 27462 Enterprise Circle West, Suites 1-4, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Unit 1, and 27478 Enterprise Circle West, Units 1 & 2 An expansion to an existing, approved church facility into three additional existing buildings. Total area for the four suites involved in the project is 34,500 square feet. Categorical Exemption Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner Approval APPROVED ADJOURNM'F. NT R:\DIRHEAR~AGENDA\12-22-94.AGI,/1/17/95 Ires ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 5, 1995 1:30 PM TENIECULA CITY HALL - MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be fdled out and fried with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be fred with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. 94-0072 Southwest Christian Church East side of Del Rio Road and South of Calle Cortez A request for approval of a church with classes in an existing building Categorical Exemption Saied Naaseh Approval APPROVED ADJOURNMENT R:\DIRHEAR~AGFa~DA\l-5-95.AGN 1117/95 klb ACTION AGENDA TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 12, 1995 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL - MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and fded with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak*' form must be fried with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: ACTION: Planning Application No. PA94-0120, Tentative Parcel Map 28084 Planning Application No. PA94-0121, Reversion to Acreage Max Harrison, Dendy Real Estate Approximately 2300 feet westerly of Diaz Road, southerly of Avenida De Ventas The subdivision of a portion of a previously subdivided parcel for the purpose of reverting the land to acreage Exempt per Section 15303 of CEQA Craig Ruiz Approve APPROVED R:\DIRHF, AR~AGENDA\l-12-95.AGN 1117195 ear ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1995 Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 6 Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 6; and APPROVE Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 6, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and APPROVE the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 6; and ADOPT Resolution No. 95- approving Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 6 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Church of Christ, Rancho California REPRESENTATIVE: Markham and Associates PROPOSAL: A church and classrooms to be built in two (2) phases LOCATION: Southeast corner of Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane EXISTING ZONING: R-R 2~ - Rural Residential, 2~ acre minimum lot size SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: R-R 2 ~ - Rural Residential - 2 ~ acre minimum lot size R-R 2 '~ - Rural Residential - 2 '~ acre minimum lot size R-R 2'~ - Rural Residential - 2'~ acre minimum lot size R-R 2~ - Rural Residential - 2~ acre minimum lot size R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential (.2 - .4 dwelling units per acre maximum) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Single-Family Residence Single-Family Residence Single-Family Residence Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: 5.0 acres Building Area: Phase 1: 6,480 square feet Phase 2: 2,880 square feet Total: 9,360 square feet Landscape Area: 35,600 square feet Paved Area: 42,550 square feet Parking Required: 130 spaces Parking Provided: 130 spaces Standard: 125 parking spaces Handicap: 5 spaces BACKGROUND Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5 was formally submitted to the Planning Department on July 10, 1992. The original proposal was for a church and classroom facilities to be constructed in two (2) phases and for a reduction in the number of parking spaces required under Ordinance No. 348 from 130 to 120. Four (4) Development Review Committee (DRC) meetings were held for this project, and Staff had several meetings with the representative for this project prior to the May 2, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. This item was continued off-calendar by the Planning Commission at their May 2, 1994 meeting. The applicant was directed by the Planning Commission to address the following areas: neighbor concerns, traffic, building facades, landscaping, and timing of infrastructure. In addition, staff was directed by the Planning Commission to re-notice the project upon its return before the Commission. This report contains the information contained in the May 2, 1994 report, along with the additional items requested by the Commission at that hearing. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a proposal for a church and classroom facilities to be constructed in two (2) phases. The first phase will consist of a 3,600 square foot church/assembly building and two (2) 1,440 classroom buildings, totalling approximately 6,480 square feet. The second phase R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP,PC2 1/18/95 klb 2 will be a 1,440 square foot expansion to the church/assembly building and the addition of 1,440 square feet of classroom area. Total square footage at buildout is 9,360. Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5 (which was previously before the Planning Commission) also proposed a reduction in the number of parking spaces required under Ordinance No. 348 from 130 to 120. This request has become unnecessary with the provision of one hundred thirty (130) parking spaces on Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 6, which is currently before the Planning Commission. ANALYSIS Site Desicln The design that is before the Planning Commission is the fourth one that has been proposed by the applicant and incorporates revisions made to the plan based upon comments made by the Planning Commission at their May 2, 1994 meeting. The major revisions to the plan include the widening of the driveway on Calle Girasol and the deletion of the driveway on Tommy Lane. Tommy Lane is proposed to be a gated, private street. In addition, a drive lane has been provided at the rear of the site and the trash enclosure has been moved to the rear of the site. There are no other substantive Changes to the previous project. Potential Noise and Lioht Single-family residences exist to the north, south and east of the project site. The proposed site is lower than development to the south, east and west. Staff has included a condition of approval to minimize lighting impacts to adjacent residences. Light standards, including parking lot light standards will be required to be a maximum of four (4) feet in height. In addition, all lights will be required to be turned off at 11 p.m. Modifications to both of these requirements will be considered by Staff if it is demonstrated that other types of lighting and extended hours of lighting are necessary for security reasons. The project has been conditioned to apply for a revised permit in the event that this request is made. Although, noise in the area is anticipated to increase as a result of this project, noise impacts will be minimized because the project site is lower than the adjacent residences. The church is proposed to be used on Sundays, with the classrooms being used during weekdays. The courtyard has been internalized and potential noise impacts will be reduced by shielding created by the buildings. Trees have been added along the northeastern portion of the project site to act as an additional noise buffer. Nicolas Valley Special Study This project is within the boundaries of the Nicolas Valley Special Study Area. This Area is identified in Section IV.D. of the Land Use Element of the City of Temecula General Plan as: "an area in the community that requires a comprehensive, detailed evaluation of development opportunities and constraints." A consultant has been hired to perform the Nicolas Valley Study and an opportunity and constraints analysis has been performed. The draft analysis is currently being reviewed by Staff. Land use alternatives will be prepared for the area based upon the analysis. The alternatives will be taken before the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing in the next few months. The Commission's recommendation will go before the City Council and a land use plan for the area will be chosen for incorporation into the General Plan. It is too early to determine whether this project will be consistent with the Nicolas R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 3 Valley Special Study. The project does not need to be consistent with the Nicolas Valley Special Study at this point to be approved. Drainaoe A drainage course traverses the front portion of the site. The applicant proposes to channel the drainage through two (2) fifty-four (54) inch reinforced concrete pipes. The Department of Public Works has determined that the pipes are adequately sized to convey the drainage through the site during a one hundred (100) year event. Staff requested that the applicant obtain a drainage easement from the property owner to the north. This is because the property to the north would be affected by drainage through and from the project. Staff requested that this be accomplished at the Development Review stage, but this did not occur. The applicant has not obtained the easement to date. Landscape Plans Landscape plans were included in the original submittal for the project. Upon the completion of the third (and final) design for the project Staff requested that the landscape plans be revised to reflect the design. The applicant chose not to revise the landscape plans at that time. At the May 2, 1994 meeting, the Planning Commission requested revised landscape plans that were consistent with the site plan. These have been provided for Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 6. Staff has reviewed these plans with Ordinance No. 348 (parking lot landscaping) criteria and Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance). The landscape plan is consistent with both Ordinances. Traffic Analysis The traffic analysis dated July 28, 1992, assumes sixty-five (65) percent of the trip distribution will travel northerly along Calle Girasol to Nicolas Road, This route is unimproved and this project is not proposing any improvements. If this route becomes impassable, one hundred (100) percent of the traffic generated from the church would travel southerly along Calle Girasol to Riverton Lane and Calle Medusa. Although staff was concerned about the distribution of traffic through the residential area, the traffic impacts of this project at build out would be 3.25 percent, analyzed per current Average Daily Traffic (APT) counts. The existing stop signs provide adequate traffic control and the impacts of the proposed project will not warrant additional traffic control measures. The project will take access from Calle Girasol. Calle Girasol is one of the roads included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) known as the "Walcott Bypass" (see Attachment No. 4.H). The Walcott Bypass is identified in the CIP as an alternative north-south collector street between Butterfield Stage and Calle Medusa. The project includes: from the intersection of Nicolas Road and Calle Medusa to Calle Chapos to Calle Girasol to Walcott Road to La Serena Way. The project is identified in the CIP as a "Priority 1" project which states: "the project is urgent and must be completed as soon as feasible. The project is currently in design stage, with construction scheduled to commence in the early summer of 1995, with completion scheduled in late summer or early fall of 1995. The project has been conditioned that no permits will be issued until the Walcott "Bypass" has been completed from Calle Girasol (in front of the project) to Nicolas Road to Calle Medusa. R;\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb af Architecture The applicant has chosen to use modular buildings for the project. The main color for the buildings is off-white, with slate blue used for the trim and trellis. The roof is wood shake shingles. Staff had concerns regarding the facades that would be visible from the street and from adjacent residences. On Amendment No. 5, the front of the assembly building was enhanced with a trellis and an awning. Staff recommended that the awning be removed because it was too large and not within the character of the surrounding neighborhood. At their May 2, 1994meeting, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to revise the entry component of the building. The applicant has submitted another elevation, which in essence removed the awning and replaced it with a pitched roof structure. No other enhancements have been made to the facade. Reauirement for Sewer The County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health has expressed concerns regarding notes on the site plan indicating that subsurface sewage disposal from the project would exceed State Standards. In their transmittal dated April 11, 1994 (reference Attachment No. 8), they state: "...[they] will not permit clearance for a subsurface sewage disposal unless a waiver is granted by the (California Regional Water Quality Control Board] for this project." They further state: "Connection to sanitary sewer must be accomplished as indicated in Eastern Municipal Water District's will-serve letter dated 12-14-94." The project will need to be serviced by sewer to the site, unless this requirement is waived by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. ADDlicant's Meetino With Adjacent Neighbors The applicant was directed by the Planning Commission to address the concerns of the adjacent residents. To determine their concerns (over and above those discussed at the May 2, 1994 Planning Commission meeting), the applicant met with the immediate adjacent residents on December 14, 1994. They were provided copies of the revised site plan and landscape plan. A synopsis of the meeting has been provided by the applicant (see Attachment No. 9). EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION Existing zoning for the site is R-R 2~ (Rural Residential, 2~ acre minimum lot size), Churches are permitted in any zone provided that a public use permit is granted pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.29 of Ordinance No. 348. The General Plan land use designation for the site is Very Low Density Residential (.2 - .4 dwelling units per acre maximum). The General Plan states: "Additional public and institutional uses, including churches and daycare facilities, may be developed in the residential or non-residential land use designations under the procedures established in the Development Code." Until the Development Code is adopted, Staff utilizes the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348. The project as proposed is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared for this project. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 5 could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project. These will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance, and therefore a Negative Declaration should be adopted. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project design that is before the Planning Commission is the fourth one that has been proposed by the applicant and incorporates the revisions made to the plan based upon comments made by the Planning Commission at their May 2, 1994 meeting, The project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan and Ordinance No. 348. FINDINGS The land use or action proposed is 'consistent with the General Plan. The land use designation for the site is identified in the General Plan as Very Low Density Residential (.2 - .4 dwelling units per acre maximum). The General Plan states: "Additional public and institutional uses, including churches and daycare facilities, may be developed in the residential land use designations under the procedures established in the Development Code." Until the Development Code is adopted, the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348 are utilized. Churches are permitted in any zone under Ordinance No. 348 provided that a public use permit is granted. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360, Section 18.29 (Public Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. In addition, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation measures have been included in the Conditions of Approval that will reduce any impacts to a level less than significant. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed planning application (Public Use Permit), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly maintained road (Calle Girasol). 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, Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 6 Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 9. PC Resolution - Blue Page 8 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 12 Initial Study - Blue Page 24 Exhibits - Blue Page 42 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan C. Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Rendering F. Floor Plans G. Landscape Plan H. Walcott "Bypass" Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 43 Executive Summary of Focused Traffic Analysis - Blue Page 60 Planning Commission Minutes: May 2, 1994- Blue Page 61 Riverside County Health Department's Transmittal dated April 11,1994 - Blue Page 62 Applicant's Letter Summarizing Meeting With Adjacent Residents - Blue Page 63 R:\STAFFRPT\BPUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 95- R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 8 AT'i'ACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RF_~OLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A ~,040 SQUARE FOOT CHIYRCH AND 4,520 SQUARE FEET OF CLASSROOMS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CALLE GIRASOL AND TOMMY LANE AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-500-004 WHEREAS, The Church of Christ fried Public Use Permit No. 6 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; W}W-REAS, Public Use Permit No. 6 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5 on May 2, 1994, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public heating, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5 on May 2, 1994, off-calendar, to be re-noticed upon its return before the Planning Commission; Wlti,.REAS, the Planning Commission considered Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 6 on January 23, 1995, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public heating, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 6; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEh/IECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 9 Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: 1. The land use or action proposed is consistent with the General Plan. The land use designation for the site is identified in the General Plan as Very Low Density Residential (.2 - .4 dwelling units per acre maximum). The General Plan sates: "Additional public and institutional uses, including churches and daycare facilities, may be developed in the residenfml land use designations under the procedures established in the Development Code." Until the Development Cede is adopted, the provisions contained in Ordinance No. 348 are utilized. Churches are permitted in any zone under Ordinance No. 348 provided that a public use permit is granted. 2. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360, Section 18.29 (Public Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348. 3. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general weftare of the community. In addition, the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation measures have been included in the Conditions of Approval that will reduce any impacts to a level less than significant. 4. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed planning application (Public Use Permit), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348. 5. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular trdfic. Access to the project site is from a publicly maintained road (Calle Girasol). 6. 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. 7. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. A. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 6, as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. R:',STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 10 Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Public Use Penit No. 6, Amendment No. 6 for the operation and construction of a church and classrooms in two (2) phases. The first phase will consist of a 3,600 square foot Church/Assembly Building and two (2) 1,440 Classroom Buildings, totalling approximately 6,480 square feet. The second phase will be a 1,440 square foot expansion to the Church/Assembly Building and the addition of 1,440 square feet of classroom area. Total square footage at buildout is 9,360, located at the southeast comer of Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 914-500-004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Exhibit A, attached hereto. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 23rd day of January, 1995. STEVEN J. FORD 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 23rd day of January, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONF, RS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNIqlII~ SECRETARY Fh\STAFFRPTX6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT%6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb I 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 6 Project Description: A church and classrooms built in two (2) phases. The first phase will consist of a 3,600 square foot Church/Assembly Building and two (2) 1,440 Classroom Buildings, totalling approximately 6,480square feet. The second phase will be a 1,440 square foot expansion to the Church/Assembly Building and the addition of 1,440 square feet of classroom area. Total square footage at buildout is 9,360. Assessor's Parcel No.: 914-500-004 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements The use hereby permitted by this Public Use Permit is for a church and classrooms built in two (2) phases. The first phase will consist of a 3,600 square foot Church/Assembly Building and two (2) 1,440 Classroom Buildings, totalling approximately 6,480 square feet. The second phase will be a 1,440 square foot expansion to the Church/Assembly Building and the addition of 1,440 square feet of classroom area. Total square footage at buildout is 9,360. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Specific Plan Amendment which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. 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. R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP,PC2 1/18/95 klb 13 4. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on the site plan marked Exhibit D, or as amended by these conditions. a. A minimum of 130 parking spaces shall be provided. A minimum of five (5) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit D. c. Four (4) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit (rendering), or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit E (color rendering). Buildinqs Color: Off-white Material: Wood Trim and Trellis Color: Slate Blue Material: Wood Roof Color: Brown Material: Wood shake Light Standards, including parking lot light standards shall be a maximum of four (4) feet in height, unless a height greater than that is necessary for security reasons. Lights shall be turned off at 11 p.m., unless it is demonstrated that they are necessary for security. Any request for changes shall require a revised permit, and the appropriate filing fees shall filed along with the application. No permits (grading, encroachment, building, or occupancy) shall be issued until the Walcott Bypass project has been completed from Calle Girasol to Nicolas Road to Calle Medusa. Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this 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 Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars (91,328.00), which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars (91,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars (978.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 California Code of Regulations Section 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). R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 10. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. 11. 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. 12. A qualified paleontologist/archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological/archaeological impacts. Should the paleontologist/archaeologist find potential is high for impact to significant resources, a meeting between the paleontologist/archaeologist, Planning Director, and grading contractor prior to the commencement of grading operations and the excavation shall be arranged, When necessary, the paleontologist/archaeologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 13. The applicant shall make application and pay applicable application fee for Consistency Check with the Department of Building and Safety. 14. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. 15. Elevations shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase of development. 16. Prior to the Issuance of building permits for each phase, the applicant shall submit three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans along with the appropriate filing fee to the Planning Department for approval. The plans shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 17. The entire parking lot shall be installed prior to occupancy of Phase 1 of development. 18. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. 19. An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 15 20. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 21. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 22. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 23. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning 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 Planning. 24. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles 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. 25. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 26. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Code. 27. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance Number 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 28. Prior to the commencement of any construction work, obtain all building plan and permit approvals. R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 16 29. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 30. All existing buildings and facilities must comply with applicable handicapped accessibility regulations. 31. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting, fire alarm systems. 32. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the uniform plumbing code, Appendix C. 33. The applicant shall provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 34, The applicant shall provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The following are the Department of Public Works 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 appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 35. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 36. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 37. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall submitted to the City for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. 38. All improvement plans, grading plans, Landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. 39. All grading and improvement plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 17 Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 40. The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) shall approve the storm drain improvement plans for the proposed 54" RCP pipes. 41. A concrete headwall and rip-rap protection shall be provided at the entrance of the proposed 54" RCP pipes, as approved by the Department of Public Works. 42. A drainage easement shall be recorded, as required, to the RCFC&WCD for the proposed 54" RCP pipes. 43. A commercial driveway, per City Standard No. 207A, shall be provided to the site. 44. A pedestrian ramp, per City Standard No. 402, shall be provided at the intersection of Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane. 45. Access ramps shall be provided at the on-site handicap parking spaces. 46. The trash enclosure shall be adjusted so that the doors do not swing out into the travelled way. 47. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 48. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company Department of Fish and Game Army Corps of Engineers 49. A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of Approval. 50, A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 18 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works. 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 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has been already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. Offsite runoff is proposed to be conveyed through the site by means of a series of storm drain pipes. The requirements for the drainage facilities; i.e., size and location of the inlet, construction of the headwalls, etc.; shall be reviewed at design stage. Drainage facilities shall be provided as approved by the Department of Public Works. Easements shall be obtained as determined by the Department of Public Works. Any changes to the site plan due to said provisions shall be approved by the Planning Commission. The Developer shall pay all the appropriate fees to process the revisions for review and approval. A drainage easement shall be obtained from the affected property owners for the release of concentrated or diverted storm flows onto the adjacent property. A copy of the drainage easement shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review. The location of the recorded easement shall be delineated on the precise grading plan. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site, In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 19 61. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits 62. All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 63. Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works shall be required for all public streets. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of exiting utility facilities within the right-of-way as directed by the Department of Public Works. 64. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Nos. 207/207A and 401 (curb and sidewalk). Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works. de Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan profiles showing existing topography and utilities, and proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades as directed by the Department of Public Works. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility, Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 20 65. A Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved by the Department of Public Works. Where construction on existing City streets is required, traffic shall remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall provide for adequate detour during construction. 66. A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works for Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane and shall be included in the street improvement plans. 67. The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Landscaping (slopes and parkways) d. Sewer and domestic water systems e. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines f. Erosion control and slope protection Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 68. All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been submitted/accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 69. All building pads 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. 70. A Traffic Study/Letter that addresses Sunday counts shall be submitted and approved by the Department of Public Works. 71. Calle Girasol and Nicolas Road improvements (Measure 'A') shall be constructed prior to the issuance of a building permit. 72. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Riverside County Fire Department Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 21 73. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 75. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 76. The 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. The fee to be paid shall be 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 the Developer requests its building permit 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 the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be 92.00 per square foot, not to exceed ~10,000. The 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). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any.traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. Prior to the Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy 77, As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District General Telephone Southern California Edison Southern California Gas Planning Department Department of Public Works RiverSide County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Department of Fish and Game Army Corps. of Engineers 78. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. 79. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.pC2 1/18/95 klb 22 80. Calle Girasol shall be improved with half street improvements plus one 12' lane, thirty- two feet (32)' paved width, within a sixty foot (60') dedicated right-of-way in accordance with City Standard No. 104, Section A (including curb, gutter, and sidewalk). 81. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A,C, pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees, street lights on all interior public streets, signing, striping, and traffic signals, 82. Tommy Lane shall be improved per the "Optional Rural Arterial" Standard as identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan, including a knuckle at Calle Girasol and a turn around at the terminus of Tommy Lane. 83. In the event road or off-site right-of-way are required to comply with these conditions, such easements shall be obtained by the Developer; or, in the event the City is required to condemn the easement or right-of-way, as provided in the Subdivision Map Act, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City for the acquisition of such easement at the Developer's cost pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be at no cost to the City. 84. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 85. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers shall be submitted and approved as required by the Department of Public Works. OTHER AGENCIES 86. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated November 23, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 87. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated October 20, 1993, a copy of which is attached. 88, Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated November 22, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 89. The applican~ shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District transmittal dated April 18, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 90. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated November 21, 1994, a copy of which is attached, 91. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the City of Temecula Police Department's transmittal dated November 30, 1994, a copy of which is attached. R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 23 TO: FROM RE: County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RECEIVED DEC; 0 2 1-394. CITY OF TEMECULA DATE: November 23, 1994 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPT. ATTN: Matthew Fagan / / GREGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6 Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Public Use Permit No. 6 and has no objections. PRIOR TO BUILDING PIdlN CHECK SUBMITTAL. the following are required: 1. "Will-serve" letters ~from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. OD:dr (909) 275-8980 ::NNETH L EDWARDS RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Ladies and Gentlemen: The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other tand use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city la,'xt use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reporls for sudrt cases. District commems/recomrnendaticns for sucah ca.~es ere no~'rnally limited 1o items of speQfic intorest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan faolities, other regional flood c:c~trol and drainage facilities which Could he considered a iogica~ component or extension of a master plan system. and District Area Drainage Plan fees (developmen~ ._m_itig~tion fees). In addition, information of a getrural nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following ched~ed comments do not in any way coa~itute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to ficxxl hazerd public health and safety or any other such issue: r~This project would not he impacted by District Master Drainage Ran facilities nor are offier facilities of recjional interest proposed. {"'~This project involves Distdct Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on wri~len request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Disthct standards, and District plan ched~ and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Ran check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. '~This project proposes chanr~els, storm dr=ins 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other radiities that Could be considered regional in nature end/or a IogicaJ extension of the adopted Master Drainage Ran. The District would Consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must he Constructed to District stande,,ds, end District plan ched~ and fees have been edopted; a,oplicabie fees ~nould be paid to the Rood Co~tL~l~strict or City prior to final approval of the project, or in the case of a percol map or subdivision prior to recordatio~ of the final map. Fees 1o be paid sho~jld he at the rate in effect at the time of recorclation, or if deferred, at 1he time of issuance of the actual permit. GENFRAI INFORMATION This proieot may require · National Pdlutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Gteerance for grapir~J. tenorclarion, or other final approval, should not be given until the Gi~y has determined that the project has b~en granted a pen'nit or is shown to be exempt. If tills proieot involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain. therl the C~ty should require the applicant to provide all studies, calColatich'~s. plans and other information required to rne~t FEMA requiremints. a~l shoutd further require that the applicant or)lain a Oonditional Letter of Map Revision (GLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project. and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to ocoJpancy. If a natura] watercourse or map~:t flood plain is impacted by this project the City should reduire the applicant to obtain a Section 160111603 Agreement frctn the California Depatlrnent of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Cor~s of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agonies indicating the project is exempt from these requirernenta. A Clean Water Act .Section 404 Water Quality Certification may be required from the local California RecJic~"ial Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Very truly yours. DUSTYWILUAMS Senior Civil Engineer Io-7-0-9% FC~M: O~ST~N: J. M. HARRIS FIRE CHIEF RtYERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DZPARTM] NT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE * PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 · (909) 657-3183 NOVEMBER 22, 1994 TO: PLANNING DEPARTlVlF~NT ATrEN: MA'l-rx~uW FAGAN RE: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 6 AMENDED 6 With respect to the conditions of appreval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fn'e protection standards: Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 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 f~re hydrants (6"x4"x2-2 1/1"), will be located no less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fee flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, co~3talnlng a Fire Department appreval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Depaxtment for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the job site. The required fn'e flow may be adjusted at a later point in the permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type, area sepaxation or built-in fire pretection measures. If main church building is not area separated, fn-e flow will be 1500 GPM with Fire Sprinkler system installed. RE: PUP 6 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. Install a complete lure sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building plans. In lieu of fu-e sprinkler requirements, budding(s) must be area separated into square foot compartments approved by the fu-e department, as per the Uniform Building Code Section 505(f) .... Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to install a U.L. Central Station Monitored Fire Alarm system, that monitors fire sprinkler system water flow, P.I.V. and all control valves. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to install a Manual and Automatic prerecorded VOICE fire alarm system in the main church building. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Depa. thnent for approval prior to installation. Applicant/Developer shall be responsible to install a manual and automatic Fire Alarm System in all classroom budcLings. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suito requires FlaT-qldOus Material Reporting (Material Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a f~re or burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. Low level exit signs shall also be provided, where exit signs are required by section 3314(a). Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement. Comply with Title 19 of The California Code of RegulatiOns. It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code. RE: PUP 6 Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location of ftre hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middie of the street directly in line with ftre hydrant. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required ftre lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 6 inches in height, on the street side of the building with a conWasting background. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit, with the City of Temecula, the sum of $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fn'e protection impacts. Applicant/developer shall be ~ponsible to provide or show there exists conditions set forth by the Fire Depaxtment. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department Planning and eng-ineering section. RAYMOND tt. REGIS Chief Fire Depa,tment Planner Fire Safety Specialist Jeffrey L Minklet Nancy IL Hughes Michael R. McMillan Phillip L. Forbes Linda M. Fregoso Wallace R. Peck General Counsel April 18, 1994 Mr. Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SL~JECT: Water Availability' SQ.utheast comer of Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane Church of Christ Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 5 Dear Mr. Fagan: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management fights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Development Engineering Manager SB:SD:eb.t5/F186 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician R,ancho California Water District 42135Winchester Road · PostOfficeBoxg017 · Temecula, California 92589-9017 · (909s6764101 · F,~X(9091676-.1615 Easter. Municil -i Water District November 21, 1994 Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: PUP 6 Amendee No. 4 (Church of Christ) Dear Mr. Fagan: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. The District's previously issued October 22, 1993 correspondence (see attached copy) pertaining to the subject project remains valid. In addition to the conditions described in the District's October 22, 1993 correspondence, the representative for the subject project must contact the District's Customer Service Department to arrange for a District determination of the appropriate fees, and payment of these fees to the District by the subject project. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office at (909) 766-1822. Very truly yours, Eastern Municipal Water District David G. Crosley Senior Engineer Customer Service Department DGC:cz attachment AB 94-888 J :XWORDPROC\WP\NEW_BUSI. 11\CLZ~.PUP6 MailTo: Post OfficeBox8300 · SanJacinro. California 92581-8300 · Telephone(909) 925-7676 · Fax(909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue. San Jacinto · Customer Ser-,'ice/'Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Henlet, CA October 22, 1993 Matthew Fagan, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: General It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed church development of 5 acres, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane. The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area. However, it must be understood the available capabilities of the District's systems are continually changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of the subject project, the status of the District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project. The developer must arrange for the preparation of a detailed plan of service. The detailed plan of service will indicate the location(s) and size(s) of system improvements to be made by the developer (or others), and which are considered necessary in order to provide adequate levels of service. To arrange for the preparation of a plan of service, the developer should submit information describing the subject project to the District's Customer Service Department, (909) 925-7676, extension 409, as follows: Written request for a "plan of service". Minimum $400.00 deposit (larger deposits may be required Mall To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinm, California 92581-8300 · Telephone (909) 925-7676 · Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 20.45 S. San Iacmto Avenue. San Jacinto · Customer Setwice/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue. Hemet, CA Matthew Fagan PUP NO. 6 October 22, 1993 Page 2 for extensive development projects or projects located in "difficult to serve" geographic areas). Plans/maps describing the exact location and nature of the subject project. Especially helpful materials include grading plans and phasing plans. Sanitary Sewer The subject project is considered tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the subject project are as follows: 15-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer pipeline located in Nicolas Road at North 'General Kearney Road (Assessment District No. 161 is expected to build a sewer pipeline along Nicolas Road between North General Kearney Road and approximately Marmion Circle.) Other Issues The representative of the subject project must contact the District's Customer Service Department at (909) 925-7676 ext. 822 to arrange for plan check and field inspection of proposed District facilities and onsite plumbing. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, extension 468. Very truly yours, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT David G. Crosley Senior Engineer Customer Service Department DGC/cz AB 93-1146 (wp-ntwk-PUP~ .clZ) DEC 01 '94 01:88PM S, ZRIFF STRTIOH p.z City of Temecula Temecula Police Department November 30, 1994 Church of Christ Conditions of Approval The applicant must ;ilstell security lighting on the outside of the building, sufficient enough as to eliminate any dark alleyways and/or blind spots around the building. The applicant must randscape the surrounding area with low shrubbery type plants, ff any, and especially around ~e buildings windows. Additionally, it is recommended that the applicant install a security alarm of some type, that Is constaqtly monitored. If there are any questions regarding these conditions, please feel free to contact me at the police station. Sincerely, Temecule Police Department (909) 696-3000 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL STUDY R:\STAFFRPT%6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 24 City of Temecula Planning Department Initial Environmental Study I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Name of Project: 2. Case Numbers: 3. Location of Project: 4. Description of Project: Church of Christ, Rancho California Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment No. 6 Southeast corner of Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane A church and classrooms built in two (2) phases. The first phase will consist of a 3,600 square foot Church/Assembly Building and two (2) 1,440 Classroom Buildings, totalling approximately 6,480 square feet. The second phase will be a 1,440 square foot expansion to the Church/Assembly Building and the addition of 1,440 square feet of classroom area. Total square footage at buildout is 9,360. 5. Date of Environmental Assessment: January 3, 1995 6. Name of Proponent: Doug Keup 7. Address: P.O. Box 364 Temecula, CA 92593 8. Phone Number of Proponent: (909) 676-7728 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section III) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Yes Maybe N_,Q_o X X X R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 25 f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion? g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake? h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground failure, or similar hazards? i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or flesh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage paRems, or the rate and amount of surface nmoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Yes Maybe X X X X X R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC2 1118195 kib 26 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, shellfish, benthie organisms, and/or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of animals? c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described in a community or general plan? Yes Maybe N._.Qo X X X X X X X X X R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 27 Yes Maybe N._~o 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? __X __ b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? __X __ 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticides, chemicals, oil or radiation)? __ __ b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? _ _ c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? __ __ 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ _ 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? __ __ 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? __ __ f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? X 14. 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 X X X X X R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 28 Yes Maybe N.._.Qo 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 or 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 any of the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? __ __ X b. Communications systems? __ __ .X c. Water systems? __ __ X d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks? __X _ _ e. Storm water drainage systems? __X __ __ f. Solid waste disposal systems? __ __ X g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above? _ __ X 17. Hmnan Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? __ __ X b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and schools) to toxic pollutant emissions? _ _ X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? _ X b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ X R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 29 c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic site? b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? Yes Maybe N_..qo X X X R:\STAFFf~PT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 30 HI. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Earth 1.a. No. The proposal will not result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures. Manufactured slopes will be created on the site, however, any unstable conditions will be mitigated through planting of slopes for erosion control (that is consistent with Uniform Building Code Standards and Ordinance No. 457) and through proper compaction of the soils. Construction and grading for this development will not be at depths which would affect any geologic substructures. No impacts are foreseen as a result of this project. 1.b. Yes. The proposal will result in the disruption, displacement, compaction, or overcovering of the soil. All grading activity requires disruptions, displacements, compaction and overcovering of the soil. The amount of disruption, displacement, compaction and overcovering of the soil will be the minimum amount needed to realize the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. l.c. Yes. The proposal will result in a change in the site topography and ground surface relief features. The slope on the eastern portion of the site will be graded to accommodate the use on the site. The manufactured slope will be no greater than a 2:1 ratio and will tie into the top portion of the natural slope. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.d. No. The proposal will not result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features exist on the site. As mentioned in response 1 .c., topography on a portion of the site will be altered to realize the project. The eastern most portion of the site will remain undisturbed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1 .e,f. Yes. Development of the site will result in increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site and in changes in siltation, deposition, and erosion. Grading will occur during the construction phase for the project. The potential for wind and water erosions of soil will increase from the creation of manufactured slopes. Short-term impacts will be mitigated through grading techniques that are consistent with Air Quality regulations and best grading practices. Long-term impacts will be mitigated through site landscaping and the construction of harriscape. Erosion control measures will be implemented as a condition of approval for the project and will have to be consistent with Uniform Building Code Standards and Ordinance No. 457. This will ensure that no significant impacts arise as a result of this project. I.e. Yes. The proposal will result in modifications the existing drainage course. An identified blue line stream currently traverses the site and will be channelled into drainage pipes to accommodate the water flowing through the property. Prior to any modification to the channel, clearances will need to be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game. This will assure that any potential impacts are mitigated to a level less than significant. The project will not result in modifications to any river or lake since none are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.h. Yes. Development of the site will expose people and property to earthquake hazards since the project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potential impacts R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 31 will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. The project will not expose people or property to geologic hazards such as landslides, mudslides, ground failure or liquefaction. No known landslides are located on the site or proximate to the site. The same is true for mudslides. The potential for ground failure and liquefaction is also low in this area. The above mentioned assumptions are based upon information contained in the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report (dated August 12, 1992). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1. i. No. The proposal does not include development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as identified by the State of California, Resource Agency Department of Conservation Special Studies Zone Map. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Air 2.a,b. Yes. The project will result in air emissions and deterioration of ambient air quality in the short- run. Air emissions and objectionable odors will occur during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. There will be no air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality in the long run. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.c. No. The project will not result in alterations of air movement, temperature, or moisture, or in any change in climate either locally or regionally. The scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. Water 3.a. Yes. The proposal will result in changes to currents, to the course or direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters. Two (2) blue line streams traverse the project site, one of which is proposed to be channeled under the project through drainage pipes. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Reference response No. 1 .g. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.b. Yes. The proposal will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, impacts are mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required which will safely and adequately handle any of the runoff which is created by the realization of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.c. No. The proposal will not result in alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. The project is not located within or adjacent to an identified floodway. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.d. Yes. The proposal will result in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody. A blue line stream that traverses the western portion of the site will be altered and the site will be improved with hardscape, landscaping and structures. The stream is perennial and impacts to it from this project will be minimal. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 32 3.e. Yes. The proposal will result in discharges into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality. Surface waters located downstream from the project will be affected by the runoff from the site. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.f. No. The proposal will not result in an alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters. Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.g. No. The proposal will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. Reference response 3 .f. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.h. No. The project will not result in the reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies. Water service will be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD) upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner (based upon transmittat dated November 16, 1993, a copy of which is on file with the Planning Department). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.i. No. The proposal will not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. Reference responses 3.c. and 3.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Plant Life 4.a-c. No. The proposal will not result in a change to the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants. No native species of plants have been identified at the project site. The proposal will not result in a reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants. In addition, development of the site will not result in the creation of a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.d. No. The proposal will not result in a reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project since no prime farmland, farmland of statewide or local importance, or unique farmland is located within the project site. R:\STAFFRPT%6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 33 Animal Life .a b,d,e. Maybe. The project may result in a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of species of animals. The project site is located within the Stephens Kangaroo Rat (SKR) Habitat Conservation Area. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a specific site survey will be conducted to determine if the SKR presently inhabits the site. If the Stephens Kangaroo Rat is identified on the project site, the project could contribute to an incremental reduction of SKR habitat. Any impacts to the SKR would be mitigated by the Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fees as required by the City of Temecula. 5.c. No. The proposal will not result in the introduction of any new wildlife species into the area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Noise 6.a. Yes. The proposal will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and any development of the land would logically result in an increase to noise levels. This would occur both during construction phases as well as an overall increase to noise in the area over the long run. These impacts will not be considered significant because the church is lower in elevation of most of the adjacent residences. Further, additional landscaping has been included on the northern portion of the site. No significant impacts from noise are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b. Yes. The project will expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase in the short run. Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8- hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated either in the short- or long-run. 6.c. Yes. The proposal will result in the exposure of people to severe vibrations. Reference response 6.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Light and Glare Yes. The proposal will ultimately produce and result in light/glare, because development of the site will create new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. No impacts are foreseen from light and glare since any future development on the site will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). A lighting plan has been required as a condition of approval and will be reviewed to minimize impacts to adjacent residences. In addition, light standards, including parking lot light standards shall be a maximum of four (4) feet in height, unless a height greater than that is necessary for security reasons. Lights will be required to be turned off at 11 p.m., unless it is demonstrated that they are necessary for security. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPTX6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 k[b 34 Land Use Yes. The proposal will alter the present land use of the area, because the site is currently vacant. When the project is realized the use of the land will be altered. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan which states: "Additional public and institutional uses, including churches and daycare, may be developed in the residential or non-residential land use designations under the procedures established in the Development Code. The Development Code is currently being prepared and has yet to be adopted. In the interim, Staff utilized Ordinance No. 348 as the "development code." Under Ordinance No. 348, a church is permitted in any zone provide a public use permit has been granted. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. No. The proposal will not result in an alteration to the future planned land use of the site as described City's General Plan. Reference response 8.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Natural Resources Yes. The proposal may result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource or the depletion of any nonrenewable resource. Development of the site will result in an increase in the rate of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. Risk of Upset 10.a,b. No. The proposal will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions, since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. lO.c. No. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street (Calle Girasol) and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Ponulation 11. No. The project will not result in altering the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population of the area. Projects of this nature do not cause people to relocate. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Homing 12. No. Reference response i 1. Projects of this nature do not cause people to relocate, and therefore, additional housing needs will not be created. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 35 Transportation/Circulation 13.a. No. The traffic analysis dated July 28, 1992, assumes sixty-five (65) percent of the trip distribution will travel northerly along Calle Girasol to Nicolas Road. This route is unimproved and this project is not proposing any improvements. If said route becomes impassable, one hundred (100) percent of the traffic generated from the church would travel southerly along Calle Girasol to Rivenon Lane and Calle Medusa. Traffic impacts of this project, at build out would be 3.25 percent, analyzed per current Average Dally Traffic (ADT) counts. The existing stop signs provide adequate traffic control and the impacts of the proposed project should not warrant additional traffic control measures. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b. Yes. The project will result in an increased demand for new parking. Ultimate buildout of the site would require 130 parking spaces under the requirements of Ordinance No. 348. One hundred thirty (130) parking spaces are provided on site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. Yes. The proposal will create impacts upon existing transportation systems. The project proponent will be required to improve Calle Girasol in front of the project site. The project has been revised so that Tommy Lane will not be improved to its ultimate right-of-way, thereby retaining rural driveways for the adjacent residents. Due to the time of operation of the proposed project (off-peak traffic generation), no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) routes are not available in the area where the project is located, and therefore, no impacts from this project are foreseen on RTA's level of service. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.d. Yes. The proposal will result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. The site is currently vacant and therefore, no one is traveling to the site. Upon development of the site, vehicle trips will be to a site which previously had no one travelling to it. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project (reference response 13.a.). 13.e. No. The proposal will not result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic since none exists currently in the proximity of the site and none are proposed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.f. Yes. The proposal will result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians, however, they are not seen as significant. Impacts have been mitigated to a level less than significant through the site design, which is consistent with City standards. Public Services 14.a,b. No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. The church and associated buildings will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection, however, due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 36 14.c. 14.d. 14.e. 14.f. Energy l~.a. 15.b. Utilities 16.a 16.b. No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. Any potential impacts can be reduced to a level less than significant through the payment of school fees which will be required to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered parks or other recreational facilities. Projects of this nature do not cause people to relocate into the area or require additional housing. Therefore additional recreational facilities above those provided on site will not be needed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes. The proposal will result in a need for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site are incremental, are not considered significant. This is because the Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. No. The proposal will not have a substantial affect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial mounts of fuel or energy. As mentioned in responses 9.a. and 9.b. the proposal may result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource or the depletion of any nonrenewable resource. Development of the site will result in an increase in the rate of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. No. The project will not result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, nor will the project require the development of new sources of energy. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. The project site is within proximity of existing facilities. Development exists to the north, south, and west of the site and they already receive these services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The prdposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 kJb 37 16.c. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to water systems. As mentioned in response 3.h., water service will be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD) upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner (based upon transmittal dated October 14, 1993, a copy of which is on file with the Planning Department). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.d. Yes. The proposal will result in a need for new sanitary sewer systems. The project is located within Eastern Municipal Water District's (EMWD) sanitary sewer service area. According to a letter from EMWD dated October 22, 1993: "...the provision of service will be based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of the project the status of the District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject property. In addition, information contained in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (Certified November 9, 1993) states that adequate facilities exist (and are proposed) which will adequately service the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.e. Yes. The proposal will result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to on-site storm water drainage systems. The proposal will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and mount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, impacts are mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required which will safely and adequately handle any of the runoff which is created by the realization of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.L No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated thr6ugh participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.g. No. The proposal will not result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above. (reference responses No. 16.a-d.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Human Heal~ 17.a,b. No. The proposal will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The County of Riverside Health Services Agency has reviewed the project and their comment will be included as a condition of approval for the project (County of Riverside Health Services Agency transmittal dated April 11, 1994, a copy of which is on file with the Planning Department). In addition, the proposal will not expose people to potential health hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 38 Aesthetics 18.a. Maybe. The proposal may result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public. The project site is currently vacant and is located within a rural portion of the City. Upon realization of the project, these scenic views may be replaced with buildings and the parking lot. Although the scenic vista will be impeded, any development of the site with structures would have the same result. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18.b. Maybe. The proposal may result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. A manufactured slope that will be created on the eastern portion of the site will be in open view. The slopes will be landscaped; however, they will not be the same vegetation that is the predominant type in the area. 18.c. Maybe. The proposal may result in detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area. Reference responses 18.a. and 18.b. Recreation 19. No. The proposal will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. The site is currently vacant and is not being used for either passive or active recreational purposes. Projects of this nature do not cause people to significant numbers of people to relocate into the area; therefore, additional housing will not be required. A small amount of facilities will be provided on site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 20.a,b. Maybe. The proposal may result in the alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic site or in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object. The City General Plan identified this area as an "Area of Sensitivity for Archaeological Resources". Additional analysis will be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit for this project. Any future impacts will be mitigated through the application of standard City paleontologic and archaeologic development conditions. In addition, if needed, onsite archaeologic and Native American heritage resource experts will monitor activities on the site. 20.c. No. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. No "unique" ethnic cultural values exist on-site or in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 20.d. No. The proposal will not result in restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. None currently exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 39 IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Does the project have the potential to either: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish, wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Yes Maybe N__qo X Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental 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 cumulatively 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 substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? V. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" IMPACT FINDINGS Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code). Yes X N._q R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 40 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 significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ~fJ/)/~,~ t/if/~/t/a/r Assistant Planner R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.PC 1/18/95 klb ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 42 CITY OF TEMECULA J II li II /'/ II II II CASE NO. - PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 6 EXHIBIT - A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 23, 1995 VICINITY MAP R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.PC 1118195 klb CITY OF TEMECULA .._/ NC M / / EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXHIBIT C - ZONING DESIGNATION - RURAL RESIDENTIAL 2 ~ CASE NO. - PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 23, 1995 R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.PC 1/18/95 klb CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 6 EXHIBIT - D -PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 23, 1995 SITE PLAN R:~FORMS\STAFFRPT.PC 1/18/95 Idb CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 6 EXHIBIT - E PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 23, 1995 RENDERING R;\FORMS\STAFFRPT,PC 1/18/95 klb CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 6 EXHIBIT-F FLOOR PLAN - CHURCH PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 23, 1995 R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.PC 1/18/95 CITY OF TEMECULA - © - ® CASE NO. - PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 6 EXHIBIT-F1 FLOOR PLAN - BLDG A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 23, 1995 R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.pC 1/18/95 klb CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 6 EXHIBIT- F2 FLOOR PLAN - BLDGS B & C -- PLANNING COMMISSION DATE o JANUARY 23, 1995 R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.PC 1/18/95 klb CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 6 EXHIBIT- G LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 23, 1995 R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.PC 1/18/95 klb CITY OF TEMECULA II // I1-~ I _1 W I-- I- ra CASE NO. - PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 6, AMENDMENT NO. 6 EXHIBIT- H WALCOTT "BYPASS" -°LANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 23, 1995 R:\FORMS\STAFFRPT.PC 1/18/95 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb ,l~r3 eL .0 < ~ z < < < < < < < ~ z Z ~ Z Legend 1. City of Temecula Planning Department ............................................ PD 2. City of Temecula Public Works Department ........................................ PW _ 3. City of Temecula Community Services Dept ....................................... TCSr 4. City of Temecula Building & Safety Dept ........................................... BS 5. Riverside County Health Department ............................................ RCH 6. Riverside County Fire Department ............................................. RCF 7. Eastern Municipal Water District ............................................. EMWD 8. Rancho California Water District ............................................. RCWD 9. Metropolitan Water District ................................................. MWD 10. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board ................................ SDRWQCB R:\STAFFRPT~6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 59 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF FOCUSED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 60 CHURCH OF C.ERIST FOCUSED TLAFFIC AANALYSIS CITY OF TEMECULA I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY A. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives The purpose of this focuses traffic study is to evaluate the development of the proposed project from a focused traffic circulation standpoint. The proposed development is included within the City of Temecula in the County of Riverside. Study objectives include (1) documentation of existing traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site; (2) evaluation of traffic conditions for the year at opening of the proposed project; (3) determination of on-site and off-site improvements and system management actions needed to achieve city of Temecula level of service requirements; and (4) evaluation of the project's percentage of impact to intersections within the study area; and determination of the project's fair share contribution for traffic signals in the study area, if applicable. Executive Summary 1. Site Location and Study Area The project site is located south of Nicolas Road and east of Calle Girasol within the City of Temecula in the County of Riverside. Exhibit A illustrates the project location and traffic analysis study area. LOCATION MAP LIEFER RD- ,TOMMY LN. SITE CALLE k CHURCH OF CHRIST City of Temecula, California EXHIBIT A ~Robe~t Kahn, John Kain~ Associates, Inc. J The study area includes the following intersections: Calle Girasol (NS) at: · Nicolas Road (~q) Calle Medusa (NS) at: · Nicolas Road (EW) Winchester Road (NS) at: · Nicolas Road (EW) Development Description a. City of Temecula Planning Case Number: Permit #6 Public Use b. Proposed Land Use: Church and Elementary School c. Land Use Category: R-R-2 1/2 3. Principal Findings a. Required Level of Service: "D" Level of Service With Proposed Development: For Year 1993 traffic conditions with the project, all of the study area intersections will operate at Level of Service "A" or better during the peak hours. The project will generate approximately_100_trip- ends per day with 10 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and a nominal number of vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Other projects in the vicinity of the siteinclude the following: · PM 26488 TR 24785 · TR 26828 · TR 25004 Based upon a planning level signal warrant analysis, a traffic signal appears to be warranted for existing and opening year traffic conditions at the following intersection: Winchester Road (NS) at: · Nicolas Road (EW) The project will be constructed in two (2) phases, although for purposes of the traffic analysis, the full development of the project has been assumed. Recommendations construct half-section of Calle Girasol with a pavement width of' 34 feet from the project's Northerly boundary to -current pavement near Riverton Lane (local road, 60 feetright-of-way) during Phase 1 of the project. 4 Construct half-section of Tommy Lane (short cul-de- sac, 60 feet right-of-way), during Phase 2 of the project. construct the project access driveway at Calle Girasol with a minimum width of 28 feet, curb-to- curb. If the driveway includes a raised median, the width of a raised median should be added to this driveway width. · construct a stop sign/legend bar at the project's exit at Calle Girasol. · The project should contribute on a fair-share basis to the funding of a'potential future traffic signal at the intersection of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road. The project should participate on a pro-rata basis on funding citywide traffic improvements based upon adopted City fee programs. 5 YEAR 1993 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES W/O PROJECT L)EFER RD. ,TOMMY LN. SITE CALLE CH~ CHURCH OF CHRIST City of Temecula, California EXHIBIT R _/ /- YEAR 1993 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES W/O PROJECT LIEFEB RD. z WIDOW R~A _- =~ '-"-~'-" j ~. ,TOM~ LN. SiTE CALLE CHAF'OS m~,~-~*~ ~CHURCH OF CHRIST City of Temecula, California EXHIBIT S CRobe~t Kahn, John Kain~-/ Associates, Inc. YEAR 1993 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES W/PROJ)ECT L)EFER RD. ,TOMMY LN. SITE CALLE CHA CHURCH OF CHRIST City of Temecula, California EXHIBIT T IRobe~t Kahn, John Kain) _ Associofes, Inc. YEAR ,993 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES W/PROJECT c~ '< UEFER RD- RITA i ,TOMMY LN. SITE CALLE CHURCH OF CHRIST City of Temecula, California EXHIBIT U Robert Kahn, John Kain~,; Associofes, Inc. VI. P!NDINGS AND RECOMLMENDAT!ONS A. Site Access The proposed project will have a full access driveway at Calle Girasol. B. Traffic Contribution The project will generate approximately 100 trip-?nds per day with 10 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and a nominal number of vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. Recommended Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures will be necessary due to project traffic contribution to the existing and Yea~ 1993 traffic conditions in the study area. Circulation recommendations are presented in Exhibit V. Fair Share Analysis Based .upon this analysis, the project should contribute a maximum 9f 0.4 percent to the funding of a potential future traffic 'signal at the intersection of Winchester Road and Nicolas Road, based upon peak hour approach traffic conditions (Table 7). E. Pedestrian Considerations The project should complete sidewalk construction adjacent to the site on Ca!le Girasol and Tommy Lane to City standards. On-site pedestrian paths should be provided to accommodate 44 CIRCULATION RECOMMENDATIONS CONSTRUCT HALF-SECTION OF TOMMY LANE DURING PHASE 2 (SO FT R/W) <c LIEFEi RO. z Ld t ~ I R]TA, I .,"'~" JWY. I ,TOMMY LN. , SITE CALLE CHAPOS PARTICIPATE IN 'FAIR-SHARE' CONTRIBUTION TO POTENTIAL FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL , , CONSTRUCT HALF-SECTION OF CALLE GIRASOL WITH A PAVEMENT WIDTH OF ,54- FT (60 FT R/W) LEGEND: _m_ = STOP SIGN ~) = TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONSTRUCT ON-SITE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS TO CONNECT TO ADJACENT ROADWAYS ~CHURCH OF CHRIST City of Temecula, California EXHIBIT V i.o %, ATTACHMENT NO. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 2, 1994 R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.PC2 1/18/95 klb 61 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 02, 1994 The motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 1 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 5. 4 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Chanoe of Zone No, 5570 Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford None Salyer Proposed change of zone request for three parcels from R-A-5 to R-3 and C-O. Located at the northeast corner of Ynez and Rancho Vista Road. Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. He advised the Commission he has received one letter in support of staff's recommendation from Sandra Foreman. · Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:30 P.M. Karel Lindeman~, 42740 Las Violetas, Temecula, president of the County Community Homeowners Association, expressed his support of the staff recommendation for denial. Mr. Lindemans said Ynez and Rancho Vista Roads need to be widened and the propercy is not suitable for development. Judy Moramarco, 29761 Camino Del Sol, Temecula, expressed concern regarding the existing traffic congestion and problems on Rancho Vista Road. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close the public hearing at 6:35 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 94-06 recommending denial of Change of Zone No. 5570 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Salyer 6. Public Use Permit No. 6, Amendment NO. 5 Proposed church and day school located on the southeast corner of Calle Girasol and Tommy Lane. PCMINOS/02/1994 3 05/I 1 I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 02. 1994 Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report. He advised the Commission of a change in the Conditions of Approval Items No. 68 and 69. Planner Fagan advised the Commission he received one letter opposing the proposed project from Dennis Fitz. Mr. Fitz's comments were with regard to the rural characteristics of the community and the lack of sufficient road and sewer improvements. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 6:50 P.M. Larry Markham, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, representing the Church of Christ, advised the Commission the applicant concurs with the changes to the Conditions of Approval as proposed. Mr. Markham said the applicant is considering a trellised entry, similar to the Johnson and Johnson Real Estate office to replace the canopied entrance shown on the project rendering. Stacy Honn, 31290 Tommy Lane, Temecula, asked the Commission to deny the request. Mrs. Honn sai'd the proposed project is located in a primarily rural- residential area and is not suited for a church. Roberta Mahoney, 31280 Tommy Lane, Temecula, advised the Commission the area surrounding the project site is primarily equestrian. Ms. Mahoney expressed concern for the safety of children who live in the area because of the increase in traffic, etc. Dennis Fitz, 39910 Jeffrey Heights Road, Temecula, expressed his concerns regarding the increased traffic in the area of the proposed project. Steve Honn, 31290 Tommy Lane, Temecula, said he does not feel a church is suitable to the rural environment. Mr. Honn expressed concern the church would increase the noise and traffic in the area. Doug Keup, 41615 Chaparral, Temecula, an eider of the Church of Christ, talked about the history of the church and the proposed hours of operation. Larry Markham said the applicant can provide a detailed landscape plan to staff to address the concerns of the property owners on Tommy Lane. He told the Commission any permanent structures to the site would have to come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Fahey said she did not support approving the project with Calle Medusa as the only access and the entry detail. She suggested the church, members meet with the neighboring residences and discuss their concerns. Commissioner Hoegland said he feels the proposed project is incompatible with the surrounding uses. PCMIN05/0211994 4 O5/11194 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 02, 1994 Commissioner Blair said she appreciates the work the church has done, however, she feels the use is incompatible. Chairman Ford said he is concerned the church has not contacted the surrounding neighbors and he is not satisfied with the timing of the improvements. Chairman Ford advised he received a statement from Commissioner Salyer stating he would like to see the landscape and irrigation plan and expressing concern about the modular design. Commissioner Salyer said in his letter he would not approve the proposed project. It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland to deny the application based on the incompatibility of the project with the surrounding uses. The motion failed for lack of a second. It Was moved by C0rh~iS~ioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Blair to close the public hearing at 7:30 P.M. and continue this item off-calendar to allow staff and the applicant to work on the issues raised by the neighboring residences (i.e. traffic, landscaping, infrastructure and road access). The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Ford NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Salyer Commissioner Blair said she liked the reference to the trellised entry on the Johnson and Johnson Real Estate Office. 7. Plannina ADOlication No. PA94-0026, Revised Conditional Use Permit Proposal to revise previously adopted Conditions of Approval to expand hours of operation on Sundays and to allow the admittance of minors into the club. Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 7:40 P.M. Robert Jackson, The Planning Group, 205 W. AIvarado, Fallbrook, representing the applicant, concurred with the conditions in the staff report. Mr. Jackson advised the Commission the applicant employs six (6) full time security guards who are in attendance during all operating hours. PCMIN05/02/1994 5 05/11/94 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S TRANSMITTAL DATED APRIL 11, 1994 R:\STAFFRPT\6pLIP.PC2 1/19/95 klb 62 County of Riverside TO: FROM: DATE: April 11, 1994 I)opm~.ntcnt of Enviromncaad I lcalCh Final C. onditioa.~ given in Ibis Icltcr supers~e all previous cx~rrcspondcnce. During the ~x:vicw process of rifts cas~:, (up to An~cndmm~l No. 5), is of this dal~ v,~: have riot re. odvod a pcrcolation test ~}r.~_~:v subsurFace sewage disposal syst~:m bul hav~; received v.,ritlo, teom me, nfs froIn Easl.~rn Municipal Wal~:l' Districl tha~. s~,.~r a:rvio~ is in llw ar~a, (i.e. along Ni~oJas Row, t Wo~ ofN. Gon~al Kc'HI~, Roaxl). SinGe 115o I~mafiol~ of lhe church is ~t the Soulhwest e~omor of Callc Bimsol and Tcmaa~y L~ (lh~ms Guide hge I 15, B4) r~ghly 1 I/~ mile m~y, our ~ndifions brim mt Cllifomia Rogio~ml Water Qualily Con~ol Board (s~ attached) royjew poli~ will not p~mil claranee br n subsuffa~ s~'ag~disposal sy/~n mll~s 8 waiver is erariled b~' lhis bo~ for tiffs p~j~. Coju~e, climt to smlilary. suw~r must be aeeomplish~ as indicalc, d in Easlt.'m Munieilml Water Distfict's "will-,~'~l w" Ictl~r dattxl 12-14-93. GD:dr (909) 275-8980 Bob Morris. Stm Diego Rogiotml Watca' Quality Corntel Board John Johnton, Mat~Jmn~ and Associates COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE · I'IIL~I :rl l sl ~RVICF..S AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 1 73 7,,I TI. ANTA AVE., BLDG,, H-5~ RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 PHONE: (909)275-8980 FAX: (909)781-9653 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Whom It May Cm~ccm Jolm Sih,a, P.IL, Senior P,blic H'cal~l l~kgi.~r, Department of Environmental Health CALIFORNIA RF.X}IONAL WATER Q. UALITY CONTROL BOARD, SAN DIEC_.d] RECIION APPROVALS The California Regional Waf~- Quality Control Board San Diego Region (C.R,W.C.Q.B.) on March 12, 1991, temporarily suspended oversight of subsurfac~ disposal system review and approval. The Board authorized that immediately and until further notice the Riverside County Departmen~ of Environmental Health will review and process, pending and new requests, for subsurface disposal systems. In addition to the standard Riverside County Environmental Itealth Service review policy, · e Following shall al~ply for all subsurface sewage disposal approvals, The project proponents must particulari~ dmnonstrate to Riverside County Environmental Health that: The historic high ground water eleva;ions are not within five (5) feet ofthe bottom of any subsurface dispo.-al syslcm utilizing leach lines/beds and ten 00) fee~ for seepage pits. 2. Seepage pit or leach llne effluent will bc r~lained below the ground surface wilhout downgradient seeps or surfacing. 3, Adequate soils percotation test results have been obtained for any and all lois. 4. The:c~al disclmrge rrom any commercial prOjecls, tracts, subdivisions (including corninertial parcel maps) will no~ excced 240 8allOne per day per acre. Only domestic; waste (no industrial waste) will be discharged lo subsurface disposal systems. Indush'ial wast~ requir~n=nts shall be det,,-m~i|}ed and controlled by the San DiEgo Water Qualily Control Board. Should you have any questions, please control myself or Greg Dellanbach at (909) 275-8980. John M. Funnh~g, Director 4065 COt,~ty Ctrcie Dr~ve · Riverside, CA 92503 ·Phon¢ (909) 358-5316. FAX (908) 350-5017 (Melltn9 Address - P.O, Box 7690 . RIverside, CA 92513-7600) ,,~,,,x.,. ,,,~,,~,,,-,, ~,~ ATTACHMENT NO. 9 APPLICANT'S Lbl I ER SUMMARIZING MEETING WITH ADJACENT RESIDENTS R:\STAFFRPT\6PUP.pC2 1/18/95 klb 63 MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES Development Consultants December 21, 1994 Matthew Fagan City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Dr. Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Church of Christ Property Owners Meeting of December 14, #513 Dear Matthew: 1994 DEC 2 3 'm'd ............ I would like to update you on the results of the meeting with the homeowners held on December 14, 1994. Doug Keup and Gary Hope and I met with Mr. & Mrs. Steve Honn and Mrs. Roberta Mahoney for approximately one and ~ne-half hours to review design issues prior to Public Hearing. I supplied the Honn's and Mrs. Mahoney with copies of both the revised site plan, and the revised landscaping plan. The changes to the site plan were discussed at length including the elimination of the driveway on Tommy Lane, the widening of the driveway on Calle Girasol and the provision of a gate to turn Tommy Lane into a private street. The homeowners initially stated their opinion that, in all likelihood they would continue to request denial of the project but were open to *listening to our presentation and design changes. All of the design changes were acceptable. In addition we informed them that the project will be conditioned to connect the sewer to EMWD sewer line, and that Calle Girasol will be constructed by the City Public Works Department shortly to connect Nicholas Road to Walcott. The owners requested that we gate the driveway to eliminate after hours loitering, and that we fence the. property to keep children from coming onto their property. They expressed concern about the future expansion of the church and construction of a permanent facility on the higher ground in the rear. We stated that the grading necessary to accommodate Phase I would economically preclude placing any permanent structure on the high ground and regrading the site. The details of the construction and grading of Tommy Lane were discussed at length, especially the impacts to the abutting property owners. We stated and agreed, should Tommy Lane be improved, that at least the two property owners present would support a private street which would hopefully shorten the length of cul-de-sac, narrow the pavement and/or right-of-way requirements to an absolute minimum, so there would be a minimal impact to the abutting property owners. c: \wpdocs\joyce\fagan. 513 41750 Winchester Road, Suim N · Temecula, Califomia 92590 · (909) 676-6672 - FAX (909) 699-1848 December 21, 1994 Matthew Fagan Page two The landscaping was discussed, and we elicited their comments as to any plant selections and agreed that we would be more than happy to take those into consideration. The meeting was very cordial and was very open and I think we allayed several of the concerns that the abutting property owners have and have gone a long way towards mitigating their ultimate concerns. We informed them the potential hearing date would be January 23, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. This should complete the last of the requested information you desire and I look forward to proceeding forward to hearing on January 23rd. Please feel free to call upon me if you have any questions or requir~.~ clarifications. I will return to the office on Thursday, absence, please contact Joyce Greene in for messages. January 5, 1995, but in my that I will be calling in Sincerely, MARKHAM &~OCIATES cc: Doug Keup c: \wpdoc s \ j oyce\ fagan. 513 ITEM #5 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1995 Planning Application No. PA94-0062 Prepared By: Saied Naaseh RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 95- approving PA 94-0062, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Pulte Home Corporation Sanford Edward A request for approval of Amendment No. 2 of Specific Plan No. 213, Silver Hawk, to change the zoning of Planning Area 11 from Very High Density Residential (14- 20 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 360 multi- family dwellings) to Low Medium Density Residential (4-7 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 150 single family dwellings) and establish Zoning and Development Standards to allow the development of 150 single family dwellings. This amendment will prezone this Planning Area which may be annexed to the City of Temecula along with other property within the Specific Plan at a future date. Southwest corner of Town View Avenue and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Specific Plan (SP), Very High Density Residential (14-20 dwelling units per acre) R:~STAFI:RPT\62PA94.PC 1/19/95 an 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is an amendment to Specific Plan No. 213. This amendment eliminates 360 multi-family units in Planning Area 11, replaces them with 150 single family dwellings, and sets the Zoning and Development Standards to develop these houses. This amendment pre-zones Planning Area 11 which may be annexed to the City at a later date along with more property within the Silver Hawk Specific Plan. ANALYSIS This amendment is essentially a down zoning of Planning Area 11 which eliminates 360 multi- family units in Planning Area 11 and replaces them with 150 single family dwellings. The applicant may annex any portion of the Silver Hawk Specific Plan that is contiguous to the City Limits without pre-zoning by filing an annexation application. However, since the applicant is requesting this down zoning, a pre-zoning of Planning Area 11 is necessary prior to filing for an annexation application. Therefore, the approval of this amendment paves the way for the potential future annexation of this Planning Area along with more property within the Silver Hawk Specific Plan. The approval of this amendment does not bind the City to annex this Planning Area or any other property within Silver Hawk. A separate annexation application has to be filed with the City. At that time, a Fiscal Impact Analysis will be prepared by the applicant to analyze impacts of this potential annexation on the City Budget. Moreover, a Property Tax Agreement will be signed between the City and the County before the annexation is complete. This agreement will specify the portion of the property tax that the City will receive from the County. Furthermore, at the time of annexation, the applicant needs to amend the Land Use Element of the City of Temecula General Plan. The current General Plan designation is High Density Residential ( 13-20 dwelling units per acre) which needs to be changed to Low Medium Density residential (3-6 dwelling units per acre). The City Attorney has determined that this amendment may be approved without the benefit of this General Plan Amendment since the pre-zoning of Planning Area 11 does not become effective until the annexation is approved. This down zoning from multi-family units to single family units may have impacts on the Housing Element of the City's General Plan. Again, just like the General Plan Amendment and the Fiscal Impact Analysis, this impact will be analyzed with the annexation application. The General Plan states: "The Housing Element is a comprehensive statement by the City of Temecula of its commitment to facilitate the provision of housing that meets the needs of existing and future residents. This commitment is in furtherance of the statewide housing goal to attain decent housing and suitable living environment for every California family, while remaining responsive to the unique concerns of the community." The approval of the annexation will result in a reduction in multi-family units; therefore, it has a potential impact on the Housing Element. The approved Silver Hawk Specific Plan committed only a total of eight (8) acres of parks on its Land Use Map. Since the eight (8) acres of parks do not meet the Quimby Act requirements, the County conditioned the underlying maps to pay fees to satisfy these requirements. This amendment has been conditioned to require the future maps to pay R:\STAFFRPT~62PA94.PC 1/19/95 sn 3 Quimby Fees in accordance with the City's Quimby Ordinance, if the property is annexed to the City (refer to Condition 16). Staff received a letter from the School District requesting a mitigation agreement to be signed between the developer and the applicant prior to the public hearing. Staff has conditioned this project consistent with the Johnson Ranch Specific Plan (refer to Condition No. 13). EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The existing County zoning for the site is Specific Plan (Very High Density Residential). This amendment will change the zoning to Low Medium Residential and includes Zoning and Development Standards to ensure proper development of the site. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION According to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, no further environmental analysis is required for this project since an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified by the County. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The approval of this amendment will replace 360 multi-family dwellings with 150 single family dwellings and will pre-zone the property for possible future annexation. At the time of annexation, an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, a Fiscal Impact Analysis, a Property Tax Agreement with the County and an examination of the Housing Element of the General Plan will be necessary to implement the approval of this project. FINDINGS 1. 2. m The project The project commercial The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan. is compatible with surrounding land uses which are future residential and developments. site is located within the City's Sphere of Influence. Mitigation measures in Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 213 will reduce the impacts of the project. The site of the proposed project is suitable to accommodate the land uses permitted in Specific Plan No. 213 due to the fact that the development standards and Conditions of Approval proposed within the Specific Plan and the mitigation measures within the FEIR ensure orderly development of the site. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. R:~STAFFRPT~62PA94.PC 1/19/95 sn 4 Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 6 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10 Exhibits - Blue Page 15 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Land Use C. Approved Specific Plan Land Use Map R:\STAFFBPT~62PA94.PC 1/19/95 sn 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 95- R:\STAFFRPT~62PA94.PC 1/19/95 an 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 9~- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ANIF~NDMENT NO. 2 OF SPECH~IC PLAN NO. 213 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0062) PROPOSING CHANGING THE ZONING FOR PLANNING AREA 11 FROM VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (14-20 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MFX}IUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4-7 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND SETTING ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ALLOW THE DEVELOP54ENT OF 150 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. THIS A54F~NDMENT WILL PREZONE THIS PLANNING AREA WHICH MAY BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALONG WITH OTHER PROPERTY WITHIN THE SPECWIC PLAN AT A FUTURE DATE. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD AND TOWN VIEW AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-260-059 AND 914-260-062 WHEREAS, Pulte Home Corp. filed said application in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference and applicable State Laws; WHEREAS, said application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said application on January 23, 1995 at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said application; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes the following findings, to wit: 1. The project is consistent with the applicable General Plan. 2. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses which are future residential and commercial developments. R:~STAFFRPT~62PA94.PC 1/19/95 sn 7 3. The project site is located within the City's Sphere of Influence. 4. Mitigation measures in Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 213 will reduce the impacts of the project. 5. The site of the proposed project is suitable to accommodate the land uses permitted in Specific Plan No. 213 due to the fact that the development standards and Conditions of Approval proposed within the Specific Plan and the mitigation measures within the FEIR ensure orderly development of the site. 6. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3. Section 2. Environmental Compliance. According to Section 15182 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act Guidelines no further environmental analysis is required for this project since an Environmental Impact Report was previously certified by the County. Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Amendment No. 2 of Specific Plan No. 213 (Planning Application No. 94- 0062) located on the southwest comer of Town View and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto. Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of January, 1995. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN R:\STAFFRPT~62PA94.PC 1/19/95 sn ~i~ 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 23rd day of January, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNHILL SECRETARY R:~STAFFRPT~62PA94.PC 1/19/95 sn 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:~STAFFRPT~62PA94,PC 1/19/95 sn 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Silver Hawk Specific Plan Amendment- Planning Application No. 94-0062 Project Description: A request for approval of Amendment No. 2 of Specific Plan No. 213, Silver Hawk, by changing the zoning of Planning Area 11 from Very High Density Residential (14- 20 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 360 multi- family dwellings) to Low Medium Density Residential (4-7 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 150 single family dwellings) and establishing Zoning and Development Standards to allow the development of 150 single family dwellings. This amendment will prezone this Planning Area which may be annexed to the City of Temecula along with other property within the Specific Plan at a future date. Assessor's Parcel No.: Approval Date: 914-260-059AND 914-260-062 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15094. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check as required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c). General Conditions The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Specific Plan Amendment which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including R:\STAFFRPT~62PA94,PC 1/19/95 sn 11 m 11. but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the time entitlement is required. All landscaping shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report unless modified by the Conditions of Approval. Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any subsequent projects or activities within the site, the applicant/developer shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program within the FEIR have been satisfied for the stage of development that permits are being issued for. The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter removal. The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the services of a qualified consultant to administer and implement the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report for Silver Hawk in compliance with Assembly Bill 3180. If any of these conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence. Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed amendment is submitted. The developer or Assessment District 161 shall be responsible to pay all the costs associated with providing the necessary infrastructure for the project, The City of Temecula shall not be responsible to pay for any necessary infrastructure improvements associated with this project, R:\STAFFRPT\62PA94.PC 1/19/95 sn 12 12. A Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be submitted prior to approval of any implementing applications. 13. Approval of the Silver Hawk Specific Plan Amendment No. 2 is contingent upon and shall not become effective, nor shall it vest, until the applicant has reached and recorded a binding mitigation agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this project if the City Council adopts the School Mitigation Resolution as recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Refer to the Temecula Valley Unified School District letter dated January 13, 1995. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS The following are the Department of Public Works 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 appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 14. The additional access on Murrieta Hot Springs Road has not been reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works and should not be considered a part of this Specific Plan Amendment. In order for the DPW to support this additional access to Murrieta Hot Springs Road, subsequent Traffic Studies will be required. 15. All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, City ordinances and standards. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 16. Pursuant to the City's park land dedication requirements (Quimby), the developer or his successor(s), shall enter into an agreement and post bonds to dedicate park land, or pay the appropriate in-lieu fee, prior to recordation of each respective final map. 17. All park facilities, and/or other recreational areas, intended for transfer to the City "in- fee" shall be dedicated free and clear of any liens, assessments, or easements that would preclude the City from using the property for public park and/or recreational purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the dedication of the property. 18. All park facilities, slope areas, parkway landscaping, trails and medians shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan Guidelines and Specifications. 19. Bike lanes and recreational trails shall be designed to intercept will the City's Park and R:\STAFFRPT%62PA94.PC 1/19/95 an 13 20. 21, 22. 23. 24, Recreation Master Plan. Class II bike lanes shall be constructed in concurrence with the with the street improvements. Construction of the public park sites, landscaping, trails and medians proposed for dedication to the City shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the City's review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the City's maintenance program. The developer, or his successor(s), shall maintain all park facilities, landscaping, trails and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the City. All perimeter walls, interior slopes, and open space shall be maintained by the individual property owner(s) or an established Home Owners' Association (HOA). All parks, slope areas, parkway landscaping, trails and medians, identified as City maintenance areas, shall be offered for dedication on the final map. Landscape construction drawings for all project areas (slopes, streetscape, medians, trails and parks) proposed for dedication to the City shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services prior to recordation of each respective final map. R:\STAFFRPT~62PA94.PC 1/19/95 sn January 13, 1995 TEMECULA VALLEY Unified School District SUPERINTENDENT Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D BOARD OF EDUCATION Rosie Vanderhaak Pres,dent Barbara Tooker Saied Naaseh, Associate Planner City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: Planning area II Specific Plan 213 (Pulte) Dear Mr. Naaseh: The Temecula Valley Unified School District provides the following comments on the subject project, as you requested, · School Facilities Mitigation Agreement The proposed development includes 150 residential units, generating the following approximate number of students: Elementary School: 58 Middle School: 36 High School: 38 Total 132 All existing school facilities near this project are at or over their permanent capacity. A signed mitigation agreement will be required between the developer and the School District in accordance with the Specific Plan No. 213 conditions of approval (see attachment), to ensure adequate facilities for these new students. · Sidewalks Adequate sidewalks must be provided, for students who would walk to school or bus stops. The Temecula Valley Unified School District requests that the above issues be resolved prior to the public hearing, Director of Facilities Development CC: Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D., Superintendent John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services Janet Dixon, Facilities Planning Analyst Sanford Edward, Master Plan Development 31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula, CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661 : 5pe~tfic Pldin IIo, Z13 ~remae,~ No. 1 Candillon; A;pmree b~ Planning Coatestons 6-29-88 1. SpKtfic Plp lie. 21! keMmnc ~. I shalT consist of ~h. fellwing: r a. F. xktbtt oAoT eDiCtfie PTIO Text t b. [xhtbjlC °8% Specific Plan Candtttons of Approve1 · I the fellertrig conditions of ippreval dtfflr from the 'specific n h : re t exhtbtt;, the c~ dtttens enumerated ·rate Ihell TAXI :, reQuireascii of Sll RiverSide County GrdtMneeS tnctlalng 0rdteleces Has. ~ ~48 end 4SO and still laws; led shall canfomlublt/nttllly vtth IdoPie~ f Plan No. 213 kneefit No. 1 &s fried in the of tee of the 4j He pollen of the spalilt pT/n lhich p~rports Or proHall to change. vdihe or modify deny ordinance or ether legdil reclu|rlfalP~ fOP the devoIDD- Ie miX ebel~ be candiedarid t~ be pir~ of the adopted slactftC plan. The pm,llcZ Shall comly ,?~h the conditions edit faith In thdi fellwing S'l' diglacy htters end/or the reqUirefriars edit fdirtk by these agencies It the !4lvelopelnL ' I. RHd DINner; ~ it, FInN CantPal: Fire OepirTa, e~: lle·ltll FIre County/dll|eJltrathdi Offtee: Canary bolqtst: I t SChooT DIet. Teaeeu ·lm oe Apt11 29, loll Hitch 11, lglt end ~y 11.19~7 her;n ~.7, 1988 :~' [ etl tJ) the (lll~OPdi Untan High SchOOl District end t, he Timecull Ueton · ?t. $Cm~1 Olll;rfci ShlIT be littlge~ell i~ ~he devllomnl~ dipplteeZlee Stage In ; ic=ordance with t. hl DietCrier policies tn efflG~ a~ the trial of trdict; '~ sulatttat.. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRPT~82PA94.PC 1/19/95 sn 15 CITY OF TEMECULA 7m / / .... +___ ',TEMECI I I I I ~ SITE ) r ! CASE NO. - PA94-0062 EXHIBIT- A VICINITY MAP PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 23, 1995 R:\STAFFRPT~62PA94,PC 1/12/95 en CITY OF TEMECULA LM / NC '~ M GENERAL PLAN LAND USE CASE NO. - PA94-0062 EXHIBIT - B PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 23, 1995 R:\STAFFRPT~62PA94.PC 1/13/95 sn CITY OF TEMECULA ,,|, PUBLIC FACILITY SITE CASE NO. - PA94-0062 EXHIBIT-C APPROVED SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP -PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 23, 1995 R:\STAFFRPT~62PA94.PC 1/13/95 sn ITEM #6 Planning Application No.: RECOMMENDATION: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 23, 1995 PA94-0095, Conditional Use Permit; and PA94-0097, Tentative Parcel Map 27987 Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: m APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA94-0095, Conditional Use Permit and PA94-0097, Tentative Parcel Map 27987; and ADOPT Resolution No. 95- approving PA94-0095, Conditional Use Permit, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and ADOPT Resolution No. 95- approving PA94-0097, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27987, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and APPROVE Planning Application No. PA94-0095, Conditional Use Permit, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, and; APPROVE Planning Application PA94-0097, Tentative Parcel Map 27987, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Chris Smith, Land Grant Development PA94-0095 is a proposal for a commercial shopping center consisting of approximately 238,000square feet of building area. PA94-0097 is the subdivision of an approximately 31.5 acre site into 12 parcels. Southwesterly corner of Redhawk Parkway and State Highway 79 South C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 csf SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) & R-A- 2 ~ (Residential Agricultural, 2 '~ acre min. parcel size) C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) Riverside County R-3 (General Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Community Commercial EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Gas Station\Vacant Land Temecula Creek Vacant Single Family Homes PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area 31.4 gross acre 26.9 net acre 1,368,220 gross square feet 1,173,050 net square feet Total Site Area Building Area 238,115 square feet (20%) Landscape Area 202,508 square feet (18%) Hardscape 732,264 square feet (62%) Parking Required 1,311 spaces Parking Provided 1,375 spaces Standard 1,315 spaces Compact 20 spaces Handicap 40 spaces Building Height 42 feet maximum BACKGROUND Planning Application No. PA94-0095 and Planning Application No. PA94-0097 were formally submitted to the Planning Department on September 23, 1994, A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on October 27, 1994. Both applications were deemed complete on December 22, 1994. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Planning Application No. PA94-0095 is a request for a conditional use permit to construct a commercial shopping center. The ultimate development of the site will consist of 22 buildings totalling approximately 238,000 square feet. The first phase of development will include a Ralphs grocery store, a McDonalds fast food restaurant, and a Chevron gas station with both a car wash and convenience market which will sell alcohol. Planning Application No. PA94- 0097 is a request for a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide approximately 31 acres into twelve parcels which will facilitate the development of the center. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 car 2 ANALYSIS Site DesiGn This project, in addition to conforming to the City's zoning standards for the Scenic Highway Commercial zone and the General Plan Community Commercial Land Use Designation requirements, is the first project to develop under the requirements of the General Plan Village Center criteria. The intent of the Village Center Concept is to provide opportunities for development of mixtures of commercial and (ultimately) residential uses that will minimize vehicular circulation trips, avoid sprawling of commercial development and offer incentives for high quality urban design. The development of beneficial mixtures of uses, shared parking facilities, and pedestrian oriented design are examples of the concepts that should be encouraged throughout the community. Architecture The design of the project is Mediterranean in style. In general, the project provides common design themes relating to building massing, detail and scale, building heights and setbacks, and roof pitches and materials (see Exhibits "C-E") for the majority of the buildings. However, it is staff's opinion that the individual pad users, specifically McDonalds and Chevron, do not conform to the design theme of the center. The applicant has provided staff with design guidelines for the center (see Exhibit "O"). However, instead of incorporating the design themes of the center into the design of the individual pad users, the guidelines have been expanded to include each individual design. As an example, the center will have a combination of roof design, either a slope of 5:12 or a flat roof pitch. McDonalds has its own, double-pitched, lighted roof. '~he elevations and design guidelines have been modified to include this for this one location (see Exhibit "F"). Thus, staff feels that while the roof would be technically consistent with the design guidelines, the applicant has created a stand-alone building that has no connection to the center, While the Village Center does provide for a mixture of designs within a center, staff does not feel that the creation of stand alone pads meets the intent of the Village Center guidelines. With regards to colors for the center, a similar process has occurred. The colors for the individual pad users have been incorporated into the proposed colors for the center rather than the colors for the center being incorporated into the individual designs. The original colors for the center were brown earth tones. Because the Chevron station uses colors unique to the design of their building (grey, white, blue and red), the colors have now been added to the entire center. It is staff's opinion that the addition of the Chevron colors does not provide a cohesive color scheme for the center and that the colors for the center should be revised. With regard to these issues, Staff is recommending that the Planning Department approve Exhibits "C" "D" E" & F", but require the applicant to modify the design of McDonalds and Chevron (Exhibits "H" "1" "J" "K" "L" & "M"). Additionally, staff is recommending that the Commission require the applicant to submit new design guidelines and a revised colors and material board prior to the issuance of the first building permit. These actions will provide better direction for the development of future buildings consistent with the design of the center. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.pC 1/19/95 caf 3 Pedestrian Amenities A central theme of the Village Center is the concept of pedestrian amenities. The amenities within this project will include walks, plazas and courtyard areas. Specifically, the project has been conditioned (see condition No. 17) to provide three pedestrian plazas. The plazas will be located between buildings Major 1 and Major 2, in the area of buildings Pad 9 and Pad 10 and in the area of buildings Pads 5 through 8. These areas will include street benches, outdoor seating, awnings and umbrellas. Other pedestrian amenities include a walkway entrance into the center from the residential area to the west of the site. LandscaDina The project has been designed to meet the City's landscaping requirements. The project will provide landscaped entry points along Redhawk Parkway, Highway 79 South and Country Glen Way. The project will also provide a landscape buffer area with a meandering sidewalk along Highway 79 South. This design feature will continue the planned design of the residential project to the west of this site. The project has been designed to provide ultimate landscape improvements along Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway within the first phase. Landscaping along Via Rio Temecula and Country Glen Way will be provided in conformance with the proposed phasing plan. It is staff's opinion that the proposed landscaping meets the City's requirements and provide an adequate visual buffer from surrounding residences. Sionaae The Village Center concept requires a comprehensive signage program to assure a coordinated visual image. The details of the signage plan can be formulated base upon the special design character and theme of the particular center. To that end, the applicant has prepared a sign program for the center (see Exhibit "P"). While the monument signs for the center and the individual building pads have incorporated a common design theme (see Exhibit "G"), the criteria for the remainder of the center is open ended and allows for a variety of signage. The program also provides for future tenants to amend the program to allow for variations in signage which, in staff's opinion, defeats the purpose of the a sign program. In addition, the program proposes signage that is inconsistent with City ordinances in regards to temporary signs. It is staff's opinion that the overall program does not meet the intent of Village Center concept for signage. Staff recommends that the Commission require the applicant to revise their sign program prior to the issuance of the first building permit to better meet the intent of the General Plan and receive future approval from either the Commission or staff. Proiect Phasinq The project is composed of two primary phases with Phase 1 broken into four sub-phases, Phase 1, 1A, 1B and 1C (see Exhibit "N"). While Phase 1 will be constructed first, the final three sub-phases may not develop in alphabetical order. At this time, the developer does not have specific tenants for the remaining phases. As the developer sales\leases the remainder of the site, those areas will be the next to develop. Staff feels that the conditions of approval will insure that necessary improvements will be in place as each phase develops. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 4 Circulation/Traffic A traffic study performed for this project has determined that the project, with the required improvements, will have adequate circulation. The ultimate development of the project will result in the improvement of Redhawk Parkway, Via Rio Temecula, Country Glen Way and Highway 79 South. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any building within the project, the required improvements to these roads will be required to be completed. In addition to the street improvements, the project has also been required to provide a bus turn-out facility. While no bus routes exist at this time, bus routes are planned for this area. The turn-out will facilitate the Riverside Transit Districts ultimate requirements. Parkinq Ordinance No. 348 requires that shopping centers provide 5.5 parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. This would result in an ultimate requirement of 1,311 parking spaces for this project. The project will ultimately provide 1,375 parking spaces which will result in a surplus of 64 parking spaces. Of the 1,375 spaces, 40 will be for handicapped parking and 20 will be for compact cars, both of which fall within Ordinance requirements. Area Compatibility The project site is currently vacant. To the west and south of the project are residential developments. The land to the north is commercial development and vacant land while the land to the east is vacant. As stated previously, the site has been designed in conformance with the Village Center guidelines. The site has been designed to be readily accessible and to serve the needs of the surrounding development. Therefore, staff feels that the use will be compatible with the surrounding existing uses. Environmental Issues The project site has been previously graded as part of the Assessment District 159 Creek improvements. The site was originally to be used as a stock pile area for fill material for the creek improvements. However, the owner of the property used the stock pile material, and additionally the fill material, to prepare the site for the proposed development. As such, most environmental issues concerning this site have been previously resolved. As with all projects, an initial environmental assessment was performed for this project. This review determined that the project would result in one significant impact, namely air quality. After requiring mitigation measures, this impact is still anticipated to be above the thresholds as established by the South Coast Regional Air Quality Management Board (SCRAQMD). However, this issue has been previously addressed as part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was adopted for the City's General Plan. The EIR looked at the future land uses within the City and determined that at City build-out, SCRAQMD thresholds would be exceeded and thus a statement of overriding consideration was adopted for this impact. Because this project is consistent with the General Plan, the air quality impacts have previously been addressed, and all applicable mitigation measures have been placed upon this project, staff is recommending that a Negative Declaration be adopted. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 oaf 5 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The site has a zoning designation of Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) and a General Plan Land Use Designation of Community Commercial. The site also has a Village Center overlay designation. It is staff's opinion that the proposed commercial center has been designed to be consistent with the applicable zoning, General Plan Land Use Designation and the Village Center Land Use Overlay. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study has been prepared for this project which determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment in terms of air quality, no unanticipated significant impacts would result to the natural or built environment in the City because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project and a Negative Declaration has been recommended for adoption. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS In general, the project is consistent with the all applicable City requirements and staff is therefore recommending approval. However, with regards to the Sign Program, the Design Guidelines and the Colors and Materials, planning staff would like further direction from the Commission whether to approve these items as submitted or to require revision and approval at a later date. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit (PA94-0095) The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The project is a permitted use within the General Plan Land Use designation of Community Commercial. In addition, the project is permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit. 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 the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348. The project is consistent with the General Plan due to the fact that the project has been design to be consistent with the Village Center Concept of the General Plan. Development of this type will meet and further the overall goals of the General Plan. The impact of this project exceeds the thresholds, even after the imposition of mitigation measures, for air quality. These thresholds are established by the South Coast Regional Air Quality Management Board. As such, this project must be viewed as having a significant effect on the environment, in particular air quality. In certifying the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report and adopting Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City identified air quality as a potentially significant effect on the environment that even with mitigation could not be mitigated R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 car 6 to a level of insignificance. The project is within the range of impacts analyzed in the General Plan EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Consequently, the preparation of a full EIR to address this issue alone is unlikely to result in additional new information or mitigation measures not already available for this project, The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include measures which will ensure that public health and welfare will be maintained. 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 proposed development is compatible with current surrounding development and Ordinance No, 348. 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 interior circulation is suitable and connects with Redhawk Parkway, Country Glen Way, Via Rio Temecula and Highway 79 South. The project as designed and conditi0ned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the initial study prepared for this project due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval provide necessary mitigations for the project. 10. 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 as represented on the site plan. 11. 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, due to the fact that the project is consistent with all City and State requirements. 12. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360, Section 18.28 (Conditional Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348, Ordinance 460, and Ordinance No, 94-22 (Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance). 13. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. Tentative Tract Map No. 27987 (PA94-0097) The proposed land division is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, which was adopted November 9, 1993. The General Plan land use designation is Community Commercial. All future development has been conditioned to be consistent with the Community Commercial land use designation of the General Plan. R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 cef 7 m The proposed land division is consistent with City of Temecula Ordinance No. 460. The parcels meet the requirements of Section 10. 10 of Ordinance No. 460 for Schedule "E" Parcel Map Divisions. The lot design is logical and meets the approval of the City's Planning and Public Works Departments. Each parcel provides for appropriate building location, access and parking. The project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project which includes mitigation measures which will reduce all impacts to below a level of significance. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, and exhibits associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This Staff Report contains maps and Conditions of Approval which support the Staff recommendation. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. PC Resolution No. 95- - Blue Page 9 Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 18 Initial Study - Blue Page 49 Exhibits - Blue Page 66 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. Site Plan R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94,PC 1/19/95 oaf ~ ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 95- R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 oaf 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0095, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PERMIT TIlE CONSTRUCTION OF A 238,000 SQUARE FOOT CO1VIM~.RCIAL SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED ON THF~ SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND RF. DHAWK PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 950-120-006 WHF~REAS, Chris Smith of the Land Grant Development Company fried Planning Application No. PA94-0095 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WIt~.REAS, Planning Application No. PA94-0095 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0095 on January 23, 1995, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; Wt~.REAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA94-0095; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIrE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Section 18.28, no Conditional Use Permit may be approved unless the applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community, and further, that any Conditional Use Pennit approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety and general weftare of the community. B. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA94-0095 makes the foliowing fmdings, to wit: R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 csf 10 1. The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The project is a permitted use within the General Plan Land Use designation of Highway Tourist Commercial (HTC). In addition, the project is permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit. 2. 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 the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348. 3. The is consistent with the General Plan due to the fact that the project has been design to be consistent with the Village Center Concepts of the General Plan. Development of this type will meet and further the overall goals of the General Plan. 4. The impact of this project exceeds the thresholds, even after the imposition of mitigation measures, for air quality. These thresholds are established by . As such, this project must be viewed as having a significant effect on the environment, in particular air quality. 5. In certifying the City' s General Plan Environmental Impact Report and adopting Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City identified air quality as a potentially significant effect on the environment that even with mitigation could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The project is within the range of impacts analyzed in the General Plan h':IR and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Consequently, the preparation of a full ~ to address this issue alone is unlikely to result in additional new information or mitigation measures not already available for this project. 6. The project as designed and eonditioned will not adversely affect the public health or weftare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include measures which will ensure that public health and weftare will be maintained. 7. 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 proposed development is compatible with current surrounding development and Ordinance No. 348. 8. 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 interior circulation is suitable and connects with Redhawk Parkway, Country Glen Way, Via Rio Temecula and Highway 79 South. 9. 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 due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval provide for the necessary mitigation for the project. 10. 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 as represented on the site plan. R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 11. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general weftaxe; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property, due to the fact that the project is consistent with all City and State requirements. 12. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Governmental Code Section 65360, Section 18.28 (Conditional Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348. 13. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA94-0095, as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. D. The Planning Commission in approving the cerdfication of the Negative Declaration of environmental impact under the pwvisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, specifically finds that the approval of this Conditional Use Permit will have a di minimis impact on fish and wildlife resources. The Planning Commission specifically finds that in considering the record as a whole, the project involves no potential adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife as the same is defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. This is based on the fact that this project will be located on a site that has been previously graded an no wildlife exists on the site. The Planning Commission further finds that Land Grant Development Company is the project proponent and the site is located at on the southwesterly comer of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway, Temecuh, California. The project includes the construction of a commercial shopping center consisting of appwximately 238,000 square feet of building area and that all of the same are located in the County of Riverside. Furthermore, the Planning Commission finds that an initial study has been prepared by the City Staff and considered by the Planning Commission which has been the basis to evaluate the potential for adverse impact on the environment and forms the basis for the Planning Commission' s determination, including the information contained in the public hearing records, on which a Negative Declaration of environmental impact was issued and this di minimis finding is made. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that there is no evidence before the City that the pwposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources, or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. Finally, the Planning Commission finds that the City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5(d). Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. R:\STAFFRPT%95PA94.PC 1/19/95 ¢af 12 Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA94-0095, for the operation and construction of a commercial shopping center located on the southwesterly comer of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 950-120-006, and subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 23rd day of January, 1995. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I ItFREBY 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 23rd day of January, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNItll .1. SECRETLY R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 13 ATTACIEVI'ENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA94-0097, TO SUBDIVIDE A 31.~ ACRE PARCEL INTO 12 PARCELS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH AND RRBIIAWK PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 950-120-006 Wt~,REAS, Chris Smith of the Land Grant Development Company Fried Planning Application No, PA94-0097 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, the Planning Application No. PA94-0097 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local hw; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA94-0097 on January 23, 1995, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, ff any, of all persons deserving to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA94-0097; NOW, THEREFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission in approving the proposed Parcel Map, makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: specific plans. That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 oaf 14 3. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. 5. That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, propony within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. B. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA94-0097 makes the following specific findings, to wit: 1. The propi3sed land division is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, which was adopted November 9, 1993. The General Plan land use designation is Community Commercial. All future development has been conditioned to be consistent with the Community Commercial land use designation of the General Plan. 2. The proposed land division is consistent with City of Temecula Ordinance No. 460. The parcels meet the requirements of Section 10.10 of Ordinance No. 460 for Schedule "E" Parcel Map Divisions. 3. The lot design is logical and meets the approval of the City's Planning and Public Works Departments. Each parcel provides for appropriate building location, access and parking. 5. The project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project which includes mitigation measures which will reduce all impacts to below a level of significance. 6. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, and exhibits associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This Staff Report contains maps and Conditions of Approval which support the Staff recommendation. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 car 15 C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA94-0097, as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. D. The Planning Commission in approving the certification of the Negative Declaration of environmental impact under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, specifically finds that the approval of tins Tentative Parcel Map will have a di minimis impact on fish and wildlife resources. The Planning Commission specifically finds that in considering the record as a whole, the project involves no potential adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife as the same is def'med in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. This is based on the fact that this project will be located on a site that has been previously graded an no wildlife exists on the site. The Planning Commission further finds that Land Grant Development Company is the project proponent and the site is located on the southwesterly comer of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway, Temecula, California. The project includes the subdivision of 31.5 acres into 12 parcels and that all of the same are located in the County of Riverside. Furthermore, the Planning Commission finds that an initial study has been prepared by the City Staff and considered by the Planning Commission which has been the basis to evaluate the potential for adverse impact on the environment and forms the basis for the Planning Commission's determination, including the information contained in the public hearing records, on winch a Negative Declaration of environmental impact was issued and tins di minimis finding is made. In addition, the Planning Commission finds that there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources, or the habitat on winch the wildlife depends. Finally, the Planning Commission fmds that the City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect contained in 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5(d). Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for tins project indicates that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby granted. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Planning Application No. PA94-0097 for the subdivision of a 31.5 acre parcel into 12 parcels located on the southwesterly comer of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by tins reference and made a part hereof. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf I 6 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFlED this 23rd day of January, 1995. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIlq'Y that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 23rd day of January, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: GARY THORNI-rrLI, SECRETARY R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 17 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 cef 18 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA94-0095, Conditional Use Permit Project Description: The construction and operation of a commercial shopping center consisting of approximately 238,000 square feet of building area Asses$or's Parcel No.: 950-120-006 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars (~78.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 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 voided by reason of failure of condition. General Requirements The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA94-0095 is for the construction and operation of a commercial shopping center. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA94-0095 which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 19 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 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. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A", approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0095, or as amended by these conditions. Landcaping for the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "B", approved Planning Application No. PA94-0095, or as amended by these conditions, Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibits "C" "D" "E" and "F", or as amended by these conditions. Signage for the development shall conform substantially with Exhibit "G", approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0095, or as amended by these conditions. The development of the McDonalds shall conform substantially with Exhibits "H" and"l", approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0095, or as amended by these conditions. The development of Chevron site shall conform substantially with Exhibits "J" "K" "L" and "M", approved with Planning Application No. PA94-0095, or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit "N" or as amended by these conditions. (color elevations and material board). Materials Colors Roof Tiles Wall Tile & Tile Base Storefront Plaster - Base Plaster - Cornice Accent Colors //820 CA Mission Blend Old Mission Red Alum. Dark Bronze Sinclair Windrift Beige & Antique White Sinclair CM8513 Red & Frazee #55055A A minimum of 1,311 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. One thousand three hundred eleven (1,311) parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit "A". A minimum of 20 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit Fifty-two (52) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided as required by Section 18.12 of Ordinance No. 348. The construction landscape plans shall be consistent with the conceptual landscape plan and as shown on Exhibit "C", except as amended herein. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94,pC 1/19/95 car 20 16. The construction landscape plans shall be consistent with City Ordinance No. 94-22, for Water Efficient Landscaping. 17. The project shall provide three (3) pedestrian plazas in the following areas: between buildings Major 1 and Major 2, in the area of Pad 9 and Pad 10, and in the area of buildings Pads 5 through 8. 18. The applicant shall submit development plans for all future development with the appropriate filing fee to the Planning Department for approval. Staff may adminstratively approve all future development if the square footage of future projects within ten (10) percent of this approval, there are no material alterations to the footprints on the site plan nor any alterations to the approved uses. Approvals for all other proposals which are not within the ten percent margin, including alterations to the building footprints on the site plan or alterations of the approved uses, at the discretion of the Planning Director shall either be approved administratively or be approved by the Planning Commission. 19. A Mitiaation Monitorina ProQram shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to recordation of the Final Map or issuance of Grading Permits which ever occurs first. 20. All light shall be directed onto the site to insure that surrounding properties are not impacted by light or glare created from this project. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 21. 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. 22. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 23. A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation Fees. 24. Three (3) copies of a Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 car 25. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a lighting plan for each construction phase to the Planning Department to insure compliance with Ordinance No. 665. 26. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for phase 1 C, the applicant, or their successor, will acquire the necessary right-of-way for the ultimate construction of Via Rio Temecula. If the owner, or their successor, is not able to acquire the right-of-way, the owner shall pay all City costs and fees associated with the acquisition of said right- of-way. 27. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. 28. The applicant shall make application for and pay the applicable fees for a consistency check with the Department of Building and Safety Department. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 29. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 30. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 31. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable t.o the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 32. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles 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. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 oaf 22 33. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning 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 Planning. 34. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 35. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. 36. The applicant shall construct sidewalk and land scape improvements along the entire length of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway. The applicant shall construct said improvements along Country Glen Way and Via Rio Temecula consistant with the phasing plan markd Exhibit "N". BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 37. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Building, Plumbing and Mechanical; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled access regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 38. Submit at time of plan review, a complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 39. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. 40. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations. 41. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems. 42. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 43. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 44. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The following are the Department of Public Works 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 appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 car 23 It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 45. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite flat work and improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 46. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 47. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. 48. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. 49. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. 50. All applicable conditions of Tentative Map No. 27987 shall be met. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits: 51. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 52. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: State Water Resources Control Board San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Caltrans Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company 53. A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Fh\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 car 24 54. 55. 56. Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of Approval. A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Nos. 207/207A and 401 (curb and sidewalk). Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works. De Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works, Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City standard 113 or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. He All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 85 degrees or greater as approved by the Department of Public Works. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan profiles showing existing topography and utilities, and proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades as directed by the Department of Public Works. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94,PC 1/19/95 caf 25 57. 58. 59. 60. 61, 62. 63. 64, 65. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-way. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula and with the rules and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit and drainage study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval, The drainage study shall include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: Am Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities as directed by the Department of Public Works. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. Ce The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site. D. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway. The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway shall be shown on the precise grading plan. Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 oaf 26 apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works. 66. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. 67. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 68. The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be verified. Any upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required, shall be provided as part of development of this project. Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits: 69. All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 70. Street improvement plans that include sidewalks, medians, parkwaytrees, street lights, and traffic signals prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by CALTRANS (Highway 79 South only) and the Department of Public Works shall be required for all public streets and Highway 79 South prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of exiting utility facilities within the right-of-way as directed by CALTRANS and the Department of Public Works. 71o A Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved by CALTRANS (Highway 79 South only) and the Department of Public Works. Where construction on existing City streets and Highway 79 South is required, traffic shall remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall provide for adequate detour during construction. 72. A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by CALTRANS (Highway 79 South only) and the Department of Public Works for any work on public streets and Highway 79 South and shall be included in the street improvement plans. 73. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by the Department of Public Works and the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). 74. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 27 75. The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate B. Storm drain facilities C. Landscaping (slopes and parkways) D. Sewer and domestic water systems E. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans F. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines G. Erosion control and slope protection 76. The design and construction of the following infrastructure improvements are a condition of this Project, pursuant to the Project Traffic Study, and shall be completed prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit as follows: PHASE 1: · Half-streetimprovementstoViaRioTemeculafromRedhawkParkwaypastthemost westerly Project access driveway as a Principal Collector street pursuant to the General Plan; · Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from Highway 79 South past the most northerly Project access driveway as a Principal Collector street pursuant to the General Plan; · Full street improvements, including raised medians, to Redhawk Parkway from Highway 79 South to Via Rio Temecula as an Urban Arterial Highway pursuant to the General Plan, or as conceptually shown on the Site Plan; · A traffic signal at Highway 79 South & Country Glen Way; PHASE 1C/2 (the earlier of): · Full street improvements to Via Rio Temecula from Redhawk Parkway to Country Glen Way as a Principal Collector street pursuant to the General Plan; · Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from the most northerly Project access driveway to Via Rio Temecula as a Principal Collector street pursuant to the General Plan. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit: 77. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94,pC 1/19/95 oaf 28 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. · Rancho California Water District · Eastern Municipal Water District · General Telephone · Southern California Edison · Southern California Gas · Planning Department · Department of Public Works · Riverside County Fire Department · Planning Department · Department of Public Works · Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been submitted/accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. A triangular shaped raised "chatter strip", for right-in right-out movements, shall be constructed in the Highway 79 South access driveway, All building pads 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. The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre/unit as mitigation for traffic signal impact. The Developer shall r~otify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The 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. The fee to be paid shall be 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 the Developer requests its building permit 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 the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be ~2.00 per square foot, not to exceed (s l0,000. The 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). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. R;\STAFFRPT~95PA94.pC 1/19/95 oaf 29 84. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to Issuance of Certification of Occupancy: 85. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: · Rancho California Water District · Eastern Municipal Water District · Department of Public Works · Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 86. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees, street lights on all interior public streets, signing, striping, traffic signal interconnect, and traffic signals as directed by the Department of Public Works. 87° Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. 88. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. 89. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 90. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 91. The design and construction of the following infrastructure improvements are a condition of this Project, pursuant to the Project Traffic Study, and shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy as follows: PHASE 1: . Half street improvements to Via Rio Temecula from Redhawk Parkway past the most westerly Project access driveway; · Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from Highway 79 South past the most northerly Project access driveway; · Full street improvements, including raised medians, to Redhawk Parkway from Highway 79 South to Via Rio Temecula; · A traffic signal at Highway 79 South & Country Glen Way; · A traffic signal at Highway 79 South & Redhawk Parkway; · Access to the Project off Country Glen Way, including the box culverts, shall be constructed; and · In the event that construction of drainage culvert improvements in conjunction with Assessment District No. 159 have not been completed, storm drain improvements shall be designed and constructed within a dedicated right-of-way per the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as necessary to provide access to Country Glen Way. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 oaf 30 PHASE 1 C/2 (the earlier of): · Full street improvements to Via Rio Temecula from Redhawk Parkway to Country Glen Way; · Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from the most northerly Project access driveway to Via Rio Temecula; and · In the event that construction of Highway 79 South improvements in conjunction with Assessment District No. 159 has not begun, half-width street improvements shall be designed and constructed within a dedicated right-of-way per CALTRANS (110'/134'). Construction bonds may be posted in lieu of construction. PHASING: 92. All necessary infrastructure improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the Project Traffic Study and the Conceptual Phasing Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning Commission through a rephasing application, A rephasing of the development considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing plan, as determined by the Director of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Community Services has reviewed the above referenced project and provides the following conditions of approval: General Requirements: 93. The developer shall provide Class II bike lanes on all roadways 66' or wider in accordance with Caltrans and City Standards. Bike lanes shall be constructed in, concurrence with the completion of the street improvements. 94. Landscaping shall be maintained by an established property owners' association or the individual property owner. 95. Landscape plans for the proposed median on Redhawk Parkway shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. 96. Construction of the landscape median shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the City's review, inspection, and dedication process may preclude acceptance of this area into the City's maintenance program. R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 cef 31 Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy: 97. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Developer or his assignee, shall file an application with the Temecula Community Services District and pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial street lights into the maintenance program. 98. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Developer or his assignee, shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. OTHER AGENCIES 99. 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 13, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 100. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated November 10, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 101. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated January 5, 1995, a copy of which is attached. 102. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District transmittal dated October 10, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 103. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittal dated October 18, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 104. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Transportation transmittal dated October 18, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 105. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Police Department transmittal dated November 4, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 106. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit Agency transmittal dated October 18, 1994, a copy of which is attached. R:\STAI:FRPT~95PA94.PC 1119/95 car 32 County of Riverside HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY OCT 2 5 ~,~o.~ TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Craig Ruiz DATE: RE: Planning Application No. PA94-0095, Conditional Use Permit OCTOBER 13, 1994 The Environmental Health Services has reviewed PA94-0095, Conditional Use Permit and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services should be available in that area. Prior to any building plan review for Health clearance, the following items are required: 1. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 358-5172. A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (Mike Shetler 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 4. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA) GD: cr cc: Mike Shetier, Hazardous Materials Branch NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Environmental Health Service clearance. GENERAL MANAGER-CHiEF ENGINEER RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Attention: ~t(.~ Ladies and Gentlemen: The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use ces&s in irt~tporated c:ffies. The District aiso does not plan check city land use o&ses, or provide State Dh4sio~ of Real Estste letters or other flood hazerd re for suct~ cases. District comments/recommendation~ for such cases ere nomlsily limited to llama of specific interest to the District indeding Distl'ict Master Drainage Plan facilities. Other rogionai flood COntrol and drainage facilities Which COuld be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, and District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, Informatlofl of a generai nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply DistTict approvai or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other s~Joh F"'~fThis project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Ran factlffies nor ere other facilities of rogio~al interest proposed. FIThis project involves District Master Plan fadlities. The DiStTiC~ will ~ ownership of Ixtt facilities on writton request of the City. Fadllijes must be constructed to District standards, and Dialect plan ched~ and In~totjon will be required for District _~:,-~otance. Plan ched<, inspection and administl'ative fees will be requireS. I"} This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inche~ or larger in diameter, or other fadlities that could be considereS ragionai in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopteS Master Drainage Ran. The Dist~ct would consider accep' ownership of such facilities on writtan request of the City. Facilities must be construCeS to District standards, and District plan chect~ inspection will be required for District _~'e__ptance. Ran Ched~, in.%oec~on and adrninistr=five fees will be requireS. FIThis project Is located within the limits of the Disffict's Area Drainage Ran for Which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid to the Rood Con~ol DistTiot or City prior to rinse approval of the project, Or in the case of a parcel map or subdivision prior to issuanCe of building or grading permits. Fees to be paid should be st the rate in effect ~t *.he time of issuance of the aotusi permit. GENFRAI INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Biminstjon System (NPDES) permit horn the Slate Wafer Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, re~ordstion, or other final approval, six~uld not be given until fie CIty has determined that fie project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt, If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then fie City should require the applicant to provide ail studies, calculations, plans and other Informstion required to meet FEMA requirerne~'~s, ertd should further require fiat the applicant obtain a Conditlonai Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grapiog, re(x~'dation or other finai approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a nsturai watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 . Agreement from the California Department of Rsh and Game and a Clean Water ACt Section 404 petmh from the U.S. An'ny Corps of Engineers, or written COrrespondence ~'orn these agerides indice~ng fie project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water ACt Section 401 Water Qusiity Certification may be resuireS from fie local Caiitomia Ragl{:~al Wster Quaally Corfd'ol Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. tTuly yours, RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JAGINTO AVENUE *' PERKIS, CALIt:ORNIA 92570 * (909) 657~3183 1. M. HARRIS FIRE CHIEF January 5, 1995 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CRAIG RUIZ-',~,: 9- PA 94-0095 With-respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City of Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The fire Depa_ttment is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. A fire flow of 3500 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be avaihble 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"x2-2 1/2"), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any potion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fn'e flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Depattaxent fo~ review. Plans $hall be Siglled by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Dep~,haent approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum ftre flow. Once the plans axe signed by the local water company, the Origlnal~ shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible bttiJding materials being placed on the job site. 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. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building plans. Install fire alarm system, plans shall be submitted to Fire Dapaxtment for approval prior to inStallatiOn. Specifie:b~ailding requirements can be obtained from the Fire Prevention office. Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on all buildings/suites. If building/suite requires HaTardous Material RepoSing CMate~al Safety Data Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fire or burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Depamnent for approval prior to installation. 10. An automatic fire extinguishing system shall be installed in the kitchen exhaust hood with activation monitored by the building fire alarm system. Plans shall be submitted to fn'e department for approval prior to installation. 11. All driveways Shall be maintained a minimum of 24 foot. 12. All exit doors Shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort. 13. 14. 16. Install panic hard on exit doors per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building code. Exit signs and exit illumination shall be provided per Chapter 33 of the Uniform BniJding .... Cede. - ' '- ~'-:; Occupancy separation wall.~ will be required as per the Unifom Building Cede, Section 503. Install portable fixe extinguishers with a rnlnimum rating of 2A10BC. Contacts'certified extinguisher company for proper placement. 17. It is proh'bited to use/process or store any materlal~ in thl g occupancy that would classify it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Cede. 18. 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 fh-e hydrant. 19. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepaxe and submit to the Fire Depathnent for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. 20. Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the street side of the building with a contrasting background. 21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit, with the City of Temecula, the sum of $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. 22. Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set forth by the Fire DepaxtaJent. 23. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Depa,tment Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439. EKY1V[OND H. REGIS Chief Fire Depaxtment Planner by Laura Cabrat Fire Safety Specialist ihnr, ho 9;mr October 10, 1994 Mr. Craig Ruiz City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 RECEIVIi} OCT t 2 !99~ ~'~ .....,,_... SUBJECT: Water Availability APN 950-120-006, PA94-0095 Shopping Center Dear Mr. Ruiz: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. 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 Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager SB:SD:eb59-1/F186 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician District October 18, 1994 Craig Ruiz, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: PA 94-0095 (Conditional Use Permit) PA 94-0097 (Tentative Parcel Map 27987) De~ Mr. Ru~: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: General It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed subdivision of 32 acres, located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway, into 12 parcels, and a conditional use permit for the development of a commercial shopping center. The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area. However, it must be understood the available sereice capabilities of the Distrlct'a systems are continually changing due to the occurrence of development within the District and programs of systems improvement. As such, the provision of service will be based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of the subject project, the status of the District's permit to operate, and the service agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project. Sanitary Sewer The subject project is considered tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). Mail To: Post Office Box 8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 o Telephone (909) 925-7676 ° Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 S. San jadnto Avenue, San Jadnto ° Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hernet, CA Craig Ruiz PA 94-0095 October 18, 1994 Page 2 The newest existing TVRWRFsystem sainmry sewer hcilitiesto the su~ect pr~ect are as Allows: 24-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer pipeline aligned along Highway 79 South, fronting the subject project. 18-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer pipeline aligned along Redhawk Parkway, fronting the subject project. Other Issues The representatives of the subject project must contact the District's Customer Service Department to make arrangements for plan check and field inspection of onsite facilities. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, ext. 468. Very truly yours, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT David G. Crosley Senior Engineer Customer Service Department DGC/cz AB 94-798, AB 94-797 (wp-ntwk-PA940095.ch) STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8, P,O. BOX 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402 (909) 383-5959 R :CF, IVF, D October ].8, 1994 08-Riv-79-17,376 PETE WILSON, Governor City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 PA94-0095, CUP, AND PA94-0097, TPM 27987 Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced projects. The following comments are made based on the existing Memorandum of Understatding (MOU) dated 8/26/91, signed between Caltrans and the City of Temecula: 1. The existing right in/right out access at Country Glen Way shall remain unchanged. This automatically requires full painted median and erases the proposed signal at this intersection. 500 of Redhawk Parkway shall not 'be approved. (Route 79 south is to have 1/2 mile intersection spacing and 1/4 mile limited access driveway spacing.) Please note that if any work is necessary within the State right of way, the developer must obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Ahmad Salah of the Office of Development Review at (909) 383-5908. Office of Development Review City of Temecula Temecula Police Department November 4, 1994 Conditions of Approval Landgrant Development Commercial Shopping Center Highway 79 x Redhawk Parkway 1). The applicant must plac_~e at least a six foot security fence around the lot, with lockable gates, during construction of the facility, 2). The applicant must provide sufficient lighting in and around the parking lot so as to eliminate any and all dark area's at night. 3). The applicant must utilize low growth shrubbery, if any, around the buildings and parking lot. 5). The applicant must provide the police department with a 24-hour emergency contact phone number. 6). It is recommended that the applicant hire a security company to patrol the construction site during the development phase of this project. 7). The applicant will be held responsible for any undue expenses incurred by the police department as a result of any problems generated by this facility during the construction phase. If there should be any questions regarding these conditions, please feel free to give me a call at the station. Sincerely, R'~jc~a~ Police Officer Temecula Police Department (909) 696-3000 October 18, 1994 Craig Ruiz City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RECEIVED OCT i it ........ .._. Riverside Transit Agency 1825 Third Street RO. Box 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone: (909) 684-0850 Fax: (909) 684-1007 TPM 27987 &~3,Z)i'0095 Vail Ranch Shopping Center Location: SWC SR79 and Redhawk Parkway (32 ac.) Applicant: Chris Smith, Landgrant Deyelopment There is no fixed rotate transit service in the vicinity of the project site at this time. However, ' it is reasonable to assume that bus service will be introduced once this site and the nearby Murdy Ranch property are developed. We recommend that the applicant be required to provide a bus turnout and passenger shelter on Redhawk Parkway adjacent to parcel 3, south of the southerly driveway entrance. RTA design guidelines for bus turnouts and shelter placement are enclos~.d. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment ori this development proposal. The applicant is welcome to contact RTA for more information on bus stop design and plans for transit service in the area. Sincerely, enclosures October 18, 1994 Craig Ruiz City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 (LC'. I/?'N OCT 9 ls'd ............ Riverside Transit Agency 1625 Third Street P.O. BOx 59968 Riverside, CA 92517 Phone: (909) 684-0850 Fax: (909) 684-1007 RE: TPM 27987 & PA94-0095 Vail Ranch Shopping Center Location: SWC SR79 and Redhawk Parkway (32 ac.) Applicant: Chris Smith, Landgrant Development There is no fixed rotate transit service i,: the vicinity of the project site at this time. However, it is reasonable to assrune that bus service will be introduced once this site and the nearby Murdy Ranch property are developed. We recommend that the applicant be required to provide a bus turnout and passenger shelter on Redhawk Parkway adjacent to parcel 3, south of the southe~y driveway entrance. RTA design guidelines for bus turnouts and shelter placement are enclosed. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this development proposal. The applicant is welcome to contact RTA for more information on bus stop design and plans for transit service in the area. Sincerely, enclosures 10' .,~Z m C) rn Omm / ig 12'-0' On Center FRONT VIEW iZZ~ 6 to 8' / 4' '0" 0.C. SIOE VIEW SCALE: 1' - 4' Note: Bench style can vary. BUS INF01~iATION FIGURE 22 TYPICAL BUS SHELTER DESIGN 41 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA94-0097, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27987 Project Description: The subdivision of approximately 31.5 acres into 12 parcels Assessor's Parcel No,: Approval Date: Expiration Date: 950-120-006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA94-0097 which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. A Mitiaation Monitorina Proaram shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to recordation of the Final Map or issuance of Grading Permits which ever occurs first. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report, compliance with the Conceptual Landscape Plans for this stage of the development. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 oaf 33 The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 7. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director: A. A copy of the Final Map B. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans C. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: (1) This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. (2) This project is within a 100 year flood hazard zone. (3) This project is within a liquefaction hazard zone. D. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) (1) CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. (2) No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. (3) Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. R:\STAFFRF~T~95PA94,PC 1/19/95 ear 34 Prior to Issuance of Building Permits A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for phase 1 C, the applicant, or their successor, will acquire the necessary right-of-way for the ultimate construction of Via Rio Temecula. If the owner, or their successor, is not able to acquire the right-of-way, the owner shall pay all City costs and fees associated with the acquisition of said right- of-way. 10. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director: Construction landscape plans consistent with the City standards and the approved Conceptual Landscape Plans including automatic irrigation for all landscaped areas and complete screening of all ground mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property. Precise grading plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements. 11. 12. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Director approval. The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 13. If deemed necessary by the Planning Director, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. 14. Private common area landscaping shall be completed for insoection prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit. 15. The applicant shall sign an agreement and/or post a bond with the City to insure the maintenance of all landscaping within private common areas for a period of one year. 16. All the Conditions of Approval shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Directors of Planning, Public Works, Community Services and Building and Safety. 17. The applicant shall demonstrate by a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 cef 35 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The following are the Department of Public Works 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 appropriate staff person of the Department of Public Works. it is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative site plan all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. General Requirements 18. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all onsite fiat work and improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right- of-way. 19. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. 20. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. 21. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site. 22. All grading and improvement plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Recordation of Final Map 23. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. 24. The Developer shall construct or post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the construction of the following public/private improvements within 18 months for Phase 1 and 36 months for Phase 1C/2(the earlier of) in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. Street improvements, which may include, but are not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, raised medians, drive approaches, street lights, signing, traffic signals and other traffic control devices as appropriate. B. Storm drain facilities. C. Landscaping (slopes and parkways). Ft:~STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 36 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. D. Erosion control and slope protection. E. Sewer and domestic water systems. F. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans. G. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: · San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board · Rancho California Water District · Eastern Municipal Water District · Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District · City of Temecula Fire Bureau · Planning Department · Department of Public Works · Riverside County Health Department · Cable TV Franchise · Caltrans · Community Services District · General Telephone · Southern California Edison Company · Southern California Gas Company · Fish & Game · Army Corps of Engineers Legal all-weather access as required by Ordinance No. 460 shall be provided from the map boundary to a paved City-maintained road. All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall pay off any remaining assessment balance(s) or reapportion the remaining assessment(s) for any Financing District including the property based on the proposed subdivision. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the final map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 oaf 37 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated and noted on the final map. Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property. An easement for a joint use driveway shall be provided prior to approval of the Final Map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS: A. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain. B. Special Study Zones. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. The Developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the Developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a building permit. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared by the Developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City Engineer, and City attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CC&R's shall be submitted to include the following Engineering conditions: R:\STAI=FRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 38 A. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the Developer's sole cost and expense. The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director of Planning, City Engineer, and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of Planning, Department of Public Works, and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. De The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage and related facilities. The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the Owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. All private drainage facilities, parkways, open areas, on-site slopes and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to Planning and the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map, or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits: 40. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 41. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: · State Water Resources Control Board · San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board · Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 oaf 39 42. 43. 44. 45. · Planning Department · Department of Public Works · Riverside County Health Department · Caltrans · Community Services District · General Telephone · Southern California Edison Company · Southern California Gas Company A Grading Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, City Standards, and as additionally required in these Conditions of Approval. A Soils Report prepared by a registered Soils Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and pavement sections. An Erosion Control Plan in accordance with City Standards shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works. The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works: Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over A.C. paving. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard Nos. 207/207A and 401 (curb and sidewalk). Street lights shall be ins'tailed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works. De Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. Fm Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City standard 113 or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. Gm All reverse curves shall include a 100 foot minimum tangent section or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 85 degrees or greater as approved by the Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 40 46. 47. 50. 51. 52. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan profiles showing existing topography and utilities, and proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades as directed by the Department of Public Works. Jm Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through undersidewalk drains. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-way. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a weedfree condition and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures as approved by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula and with the rules and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA. A Flood Plain Development Permit and drainage study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The drainage study shall include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities as directed by the Department of Public Works. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site. D. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway. R;\STAFFRPT\95PA94,PC 1/19/95 caf 41 The location of existing and post development lO0-year floodplain and floodway shall be shown on the precise grading plan. 53. Concentrated onsite runoff shall be conveyed in concrete ribbon gutters or underground storm drain facilities to an adequate outlet as determined by the Department of Public Works. 54. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply. Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the Department of Public Works. 55. The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement. 56. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 57. The adequacy of the capacity of existing downstream drainage facilities shall be verified. Any upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required, shall be provided as part of development o.f this project. Prior to the Issuance of Encroachment Permits: 58. All necessary grading permit requirements shall have been accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 59. Street improvement plans that include sidewalks, medians, parkway trees, street lights, and traffic signals prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by CALTRANS (Highway 79 South only) and the Department of Public Works shall be required for all public streets and Highway 79 South prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans and profiles shall show the location of exiting utility facilities within the right-of-way as directed by CALTRANS and the Department of Public Works. 60. A Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved by CALTRANS (Highway 79 South only) and the Department of Public Works. Where construction on existing City streets and Highway 79 South is required, traffic shall remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall provide for adequate detour during construction. 61. A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by CALTRANS (Highway 79 South only) and the Department of Public Works for any work on public streets and Highway 79 South and shall be included in the street improvement plans. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 car 42 62. 63. 64. 65. Bus bays will be designed at all existing and proposed bus stops as directed by the Department of Public Works and the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works for dedication to the City where sidewalks meander through private property, The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works, Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate B. Storm drain facilities C. Landscaping (slopes and parkways) D. Sewer and domestic water systems E. All trails, as required by the City's Master Plans F. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines G. Erosion control and slope protection The design and construction of the following infrastructure improvements are a condition of this Project, pursuant to the Project Traffic Study, and shall be completed prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Permit as follows: PHASE 1: · Half-streetimprovementstoViaRioTemeculafromRedhawkParkwaypastthemost westerly Project access driveway as a Principal Collector street pursuant to the General Plan; · Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from Highway 79 South past the most northerly Project access driveway as a Principal Collector street pursuant to the General Plan; · Full street improvements, including raised medians, to Redhawk Parkway from Highway 79 South to Via Rio Temecula as an Urban Arterial Highway pursuant to the General Plan or as conceptually shown on the Site Plan; · A traffic signal at Highway 79 South & Country Glen Way; PHASE 1C/2 (the earlier of): · Full street improvements to Via Rio Temecula from Redhawk Parkway to Country Glen Way as a Principal Collector street pursuant to the General Plan; R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 43 · Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from the most northerly Project access driveway to Via Rio Temecula as a Principal Collector street pursuant to the General Plan. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit: 66. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: · Rancho California Water District · Eastern Municipal Water District · General Telephone · Southern California Edison · Southern California Gas · Planning Department · Department of Public Works · Riverside County Fire Department · Planning Department · Department of Public Works · Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 67. All necessary construction or encroachment permits have been submitted/accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 68. A triangular shaped raised "chatter strip", for right-in right-out movements, shall be constructed in the Highway 79 South access driveway. 69. All building pads 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. 70. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 71. The 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. The fee to be paid shall be 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 the Developer requests its building permit 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 the Developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the bond shall be ~2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $1 0,000. The 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). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1119195 oaf 44 fee for this project; erovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. 72. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section, Prior to Issuance of Certification of Occupancy: 73. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: · Rancho California Water District · Eastern Municipal Water District · Department of Public Works · Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 74. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards, including but not limited to curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees, street lights on all interior public streets, signing, striping, traffic signal interconnect, and traffic signals as directed by the Department of Public Works. 75. Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805, 76. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the Department of Public Works. 77. The existing improvements shall be reviewed, Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. 78. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 79. The design and construction of the following infrastructure improvements are a condition of this Project, pursuant to the Project Traffic Study, and shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy as follows: PHASE 1: · Half street improvements to Via Rio Temecula from Redhawk Parkway past the most westerly Project access driveway; · Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from Highway 79 South past the most northerly Project access driveway; · Full street improvements, including raised medians, to Redhawk Parkway from Highway 79 South to Via Rio Temecula; · A traffic signal at Highway 79 South & Country Glen Way; · A traffic signal at Highway 79 South & Redhawk Parkway; · Access to the Project off Country Glen Way, including the box culverts, shall be constructed; and R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 car 46 · In the event that construction of drainage culvert improvements in conjunction with Assessment District No. 159 have not been completed, storm drain improvements shall be designed and constructed within a dedicated right-of-way per the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as necessary to provide access to Country Glen Way. PHASE 1 C/2 (the earlier of): · Full street improvements to Via Rio Temecula from Redhawk Parkway to Country Glen Way; · Half street improvements to Country Glen Way from the most northerly Project access driveway to Via Rio Temecula; and · In the event that construction of Highway 79 South improvements in conjunction with Assessment District No. 159 has not begun, half-width street improvements shall be designed and constructed within a dedicated right-of-way per CALTRANS (110'/134'). Construction bonds may be posted in lieu of construction. PHASING: 80. All necessary infrastructure improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the Project Traffic Study and the Conceptual Phasing Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning Commission through a rephasing application. A rephasing of the development considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing plan, as determined by the Director of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works. COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Community Services has reviewed the above referenced project and provides the following conditions of approval: General Requirements: 81. The developer shall provide Class II bike lanes on all roadways 66' or wider in accordance with Caltrans and City Standards. Bike lanes shall be constructed in concurrence with the completion of the street improvements. 82. Landscaping shall be maintained by an established property owners' association or the individual property owner. 83. Landscape plans for the proposed median on Redhawk Parkway shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/9S car 46 84. Construction of the landscape median shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the City's review, inspection, and dedication process may preclude acceptance of this area into the City's maintenance program, Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy: 85. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Developer or his assignee, shall file an application with the Temecula Community Services District and pay the appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial street lights into the maintenance program. 86. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Developer or his assignee, shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 87. The developer shall apply for lot/parcels address assignment. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits: 88. The foliowine fees shall be paid to the Building and Safety Department: A. Library Fees B. Fire Mitigation Fees C. Regional Statistical Area (RSA) Fees D. Development Agreement Fees E. City Building Plan Review Fees F. City Consistency Check Fees G. School Fees (made payable to the Temecula Unified School District) The applicant shall apply for Bulldine Plan Review and Consistency Check. A copy of the approved Acoustical Analysis shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department to ensure compliance with 65 dBA for exterior and 45 dBA for interior noise levels. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Buildina, Plumbina and Mechanical Codes; 1990 National Electrical Code; California Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Handicapped Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 89. 90. '91. R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 47 92. The applicant shall submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plans in compliance with Ordinance No, 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 93. The applicant shall obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review. OTHER AGENCIES 94. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittel dated October 13, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 95. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittel dated November 10, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 96. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District transmittal dated October 10, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 97. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District transmittel dated October 18, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 98. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Department of Transportation transmittal dated October 18, 1994, a copy of which is attached. 99. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set foFth in the Riverside Transit Agency transmittel dated October 18, 1994, a copy of which is attached. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 cef ( County of Riverside HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY RECEIVED 0 C T 2 5 199: ............ TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Craig Ruiz · FRO~OGreg Dellenbach, EHS IV DATE: OCTOBER 13, 1994 RE: Planning Application No. PA94-0097, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27987 The Environmental Health Services has reviewed PA94-0097, Tentative Parcel Map No. 27987 and has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services should be available in that area. Prior to any building plan review for Health clearance, the following items are r~q~ired: 1. "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering agencies. Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted, including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law. For specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 358-5172. A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services Materials Management Branch (Mike Shetler 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 4. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA) GD:cr cc: Mike Shetler, Hazardous Materials Branch NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final Environmental Health Service clearance. GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER F RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Ladies end Gentlemen: RECEIVED N 0 V } 5 199z The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use c~ses in incorporated cities. The Dis~ict aJso does not plan check dty land use cases, or provide State Division of Read Estate latters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. District comrrmnts/recommendatior,.s for such cases are normaily limited to Items of specific interest to the Disffiot including Dimriot Master Drainage Plan radiities, other regional flood control and drainage radiities which could be considered a Ioglcad component or extension of n master plan system, and District Area Drainage Ran fees (devadopment mitigation fees). In addition, |nfomlatjon of · genarai nature Is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked oomments do not in any way constitote or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public headm and safety or any other such Issue: ['~This project wcqJId not be Impacted by District Master Drainage Ran fadlMes nor ere offier fadlitjes of reglonai linereat proposed. ['1 This project invdves District Master Plan radiities. The District will ~ ownership of such radiities on writton request of the City. Fadlities inspection and edminjstr~ve less will be required. _ I"j This project prop'3~_" channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other fadlMes that couid be considered regionai in nature and/or a legicaJ extension of the adopted Master Drainage Ran. The District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on writtan request of the City. Fadlltles must be Cons'd'ucteq to District standards, and District plan ch~ck and inspection will be required for District acceptartoe. Plan Ched<, Inspection and eqminis~'~ve fees will be reguireq. I""lThis project is located within the limits of thehe Disffict's Area Dradnage Ran for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid to the Rood Control Disriot or CIte/prior to firtad approvai of the project, or in thehe case of a parcel map or subdivision prier to issuance of building or grading permits. Fees to be paid should be at thehe rate In effect at thehe time of issuance of thehe antuai permit. GENFRAI INFORMATION This project may require a Natjonai Pollutarst Discharge Biminmion System (NPDES) permit from thee State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for graaing, recordatjon, or other finaM approvai, should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. ff this project involves a Fedarai Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, caiculmions, plans and other Information required to meet FEMA requirements, and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditionai lettar of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordatjon or other ~nai approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a naturai watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this projedz the City should require the applicant to obtain · Section 1601/1603 . Agreement from the Cadifemia Departmerit of Rsh and Game and · Clean Water Act Section 404 pern~ from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or wffilen corTespondence fTOm thes~ egendes Indicating the project is exempt from these requiremerits. A Ciean Water Act Section 401 Water Quaiity Certfficstton may be required from the local Cadlfornla Reglortad Water Quality Con~d Board pdor to issuance of the Corps - 404 porrnit. Very truiy yours, .~/DUSTYWILUAMS Senior Civil Engineer FORM: OlSTINTA3 K ncho Wmr October 10, 1994 RECEIVED OCT 12 Bgtt Anti ............ Mr. Craig Ruiz City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT: Water Availability Ph'rdel Map 27987 PA94-0097 Dear Mr. Ruiz: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. 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 Ms. Senga Doherty. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager SB:SD:eb59-Z/F186 cc: Senga Doherty, Engineering Technician Eastern Municipal XJ(, -ter District'(" October 18, 1994 Craig Ruiz, Case Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 SUBJECT: PA 94-0095 (Conditional Use Permit) PA 94-0097 (Tentative Parcel Map 27987) Dear Mr. Ruiz: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: General It is our understanding the subject project is a proposed subdivision of 32 acres, located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Highway 79 South and Redhawk Parkway, into 12 parcels, and a conditional use permit for the development of a commercial shopping center. The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area. However, it must be understood the available service capabilities of the Distrlct's system are COntiBnally changing due to the occurrence of development Within the District and programs of system improvement. As such, the provision of service will be based on the detailed plan of service requirements, the timing of the subject project, the status of the District's permit to operate, and the service .... agreement between the District and the developer of the subject project. Sanitary Sewer The subject project is considered tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF). MailTo: Post OfficeBox8300 · SanJacinto, California 92581-8300 · Telephone(909) 925-7676 · Fax(909) 929-0257 Ma/n Office: 2045 S. San Jadnro Avenue, San Jadnto · Customer Service/Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oak/and Avenue, Hemet, CA Craig Ruiz PA 94-0095 October 18, 1994 Page 2 The nearest existing TVRWRF system sanitary sewer facilities to the subject project are as follows: 24-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer pipeline aligned along Highway 79 South, fronting the subject project. 18-inch diameter gravity-flow sewer pipeline aligned along Redhawk Parkway, fronting the subject project. Other Issues The representatives of the subject project must contact the District's Customer Service Department to make arrangements'for plan check and field inspection of onsite facilities. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, ext. 468. Very truly yours, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT David G. Crosley Senior Engineer Customer Service Department DGC/cz AB 94-798, AB 94-797 (wp-nn, tk*PA940095.clz) STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OISTR~CT 8, P.O. BOX 23~1 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402 ~ '909) 383-5959 October 18, 1994 08-Riv-79-17. 376 PETE WILSON, Gavemot City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 PA94-0095, CUP, AND PA94-0097, TPM 27987 Thank you for the opportunity to review the above referenced projects. The following comments are made based on the existing Memorandum of Understatding (MOU) dated 8/26/91, signed between Caltrans and the City of Temecula: The existing right in/right out access at Country Glen Way shall remain unchanged. This automatically requires full painted median and erases the proposed signal at this intersection. 500 of Redhawk Parkway shall not be approved. (Route 79 south is to have 1/2 mile intersection spacing and 1/4 mile limited access driveway spacing.) Please note that if any work is necessary within the State. right of way, the developer must obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Caltrans District 8 Permit Office prior to beginning work. If additional information is desired, please call Mr. Ahmad Salah of the Office of Development Review at (909) 383-5908. Office of Development Review October 18, 1994 Craig Ruiz City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 RECEIVED OCT l 'd ........... Riverside Transit Ageheir 1825 Third Street P,O. 8ox 59968 Riverside, CA 92547 Phone: (909) 684-0850 Fax: (909) 684-1007 TPM 27987 &~i~ii~iL0095 Vail Ranch Shopping Center Location: SWC SR79 and Redhawk Park'way (32 ac.) Applicant: Chrls Smith, Landgrant De~'elopment There is no fixed ro~xte transit serVice in the vicinity of the project site at this time. However', it is reasonable to assun:e that bus service will be introduced once this site and the nearby MUrdy Ranch property are developed. We recommend that the applicant be required to provide a bus turnout and passenger shelter on Redhawk Parkway adjacent to parcel 3, south of the southerly driveway entrance. RTA design guidelines for bus turnouts and shelter placement are encloskl. . .' . .- . ; - ~;--~-i .:-: ..,, .2_....,, Thank you for applicant is welcome to contact RTA for more information on bus stop design and plans ~or .'... transit service in the area. .... · .. - · - · .... ,: -t,,--," ~-:- Sincerely, · : --,- :~. ATTACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL STUDY R:\STAFFRPT%95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 49 City of Temecula Planning Department Initial Environmental Study I. BACKGROLrND INFORMATION 1. Name of Project: Vail Ranch Commercial Center 2. Case Numbers: PA94-0095 & PA94-0097 3. Location of Project: Southwesterly corner of Highway 79 South & Redhawk Parkway. 4. Description of Project: PA94-0095 - A Conditional Use Permit for a commercial shopping center consisting of retail shops, restaurants, a movie theater and a gas station, totalling approximately 238,000 square feet. PA94-0097, Tentative Parcel Map 27987- A commercial subdivision consisting of 12 parcels on approximately 30 acres for a commercial shopping center. 5. Environmental Assessment Date: November 3, 1994 6. Project Proponent: Chris Smith Land Grant Development 12625 Highbluff Dr. g212 San Diego, CA 92130 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section III) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe N._.Qo a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures? Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ __x The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion? g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake? X R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 car 50 h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, liquefaction, ground failure, or similar hazards? i. Any development within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or moisture or any change in climate, whether locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? Yes Maybe N._9,o X X X X X R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 oaf Yes Maybe b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants? __ __ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? __ __ d. Reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop? __ __ 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (animals includes all land animals, birds, reptiles, fish, amphibians, shellfish, benthie organisms, and/or insects)? __ __ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of animals? __ __ c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __ _ d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? __ __ e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ __ 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X c. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? X 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce or result in light or glare? X 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration of the present land use of an area? X b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described in a community or general plan? _ _ 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? __X __ b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? __X __ N.__qo B:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/'19/95 caf 5~) Yes Maybe 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions (hazardous substances includes, but is not limited to, pesticides, chemicals, oil or radiation)? X b. The use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? X c. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? __ __ 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? X 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? X 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X_ c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation? __ __ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? __X __ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? .X_X __ 14. 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 X R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 5~ e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: __ __ 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 or 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 any of the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? __ __ b. Communications systems? __ __ c. Water systems? __ __ d. Sanitary sewer systems or septic tanks? __ __ e. Storm water drainage systems? _ _ f. Solid waste disposal systems? __ __ g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above? __ __ 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and schools) to toxic pollutant emissions? __ __ 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? __ __ b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? __ __ c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area? __ __ 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities? __ __ Yes Maybe X N__o X R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 oaf 54 Yes Maybe N._9.o 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic site? X Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? __x Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? R:\STAFFRP'T~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 car 55 HI. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1.a,c,d,g. No. The project is located within the boundary of Assessment District 159 (AD 159). Currenfiy, the District is performing channel and storm drain improvements in and around Temecula Creek, which is adjacent to the southerly boundary of the project site. In conjunction with the District improvements, the project site was used as a borrow site. The site was overexcavated and the borrow material has been utilized as engineered fill material for this project. All grading related impacts have been incurred previously as a result of the AD 159 project. As a result of the previous grading, this project will not result in unstable earth conditions, changes to geologic substructures, changes in topography, destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features, or the modification of any creek or channel. Therefore, no impacts are foreseen as a result of this project. 1.b. No. As stated in answer 1 .a., the site has been previously graded. There will be minor "finish grading" activities to prepare the final building pad areas. The mount of finish grading is very small in scale and is therefore considered insignificant. i.e. Maybe. As stated in answer 1.a., the site has been previously graded. However, final development of the site may result in increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site during the construction phase of the project. Erosion control techniques for this phase will be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-term, hardscape and permanent landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.f. No. The project proposal will not result in changes in siltation, deposition or erosion. The construction of hardacape and permanent landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1.h. Yes. Development of the site will expose people and property to earthquake hazards since the project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potential impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Information contained in the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report (certified November 9, 1993) states that the project has the potential to expose people or property to liquefaction hazards. However, the engineered ~l material that has bee located on this site as a result of the AD 159 project has been designed and compacted in conformante with City standards for development within liquefactions hazard areas. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 1 .i. No. The project is not located within and Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Air 2.a. Yes. The project will result in air emissions both in the short and long-term. The project applicant has submitted an air quality impact analysis in conformante with the Southern California Air R:\STAFFRPT\gSPA94.PC 1/19/95 car 56 2.b. 2.c. Water 3.b. 3.c. 3.d,e. 3.f,g. Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook. After incorporating mitigations recommended by the SCAQMD, the project still exceeds the districts thresholds. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use designation for the site. While the Air Quality analysis in the General Plan's Environmental Impact Report does state that significant impacts due to air quality will result at City buildout, a statement of overriding consideration was made for these impacts. Because this project is consistent with the General Plan and the air quality impacts have previously been addressed, the impacts are not considered to be significant. Yes. Objectionable odors will occur during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The project will not result in alterations of air movement, temperature, or moisture, or in any change in climate either locally or regionally. The scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No. While the southerly project boundary is adjacent to Temecula Creek, the project has been designed such that the will not impact the Creek. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes. The proposal will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and mount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings and accompanying hardscape. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, impacts are mitigated through site design. Existing drainage conveyances safely and will adequately handle the existing runoff and any potential runoff which will be created by this project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The project is located within the 100-year flood plain. However, the current AD 159 improvements to Temecula Creek will remove the project site from the flood plain. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Yes. The proposal will result in discharges into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The proposal will not result in an alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters. Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. In addition, the proposal will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions, withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 57 3.h. Yes. The project will result in the reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies. However, water service will be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD) upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.i. Yes. The project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Potential impacts can be mitigated through utilizing existing emergency response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate service provision as the City develops. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Plant Life 4.a. No. The proposal will not result in any change to the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants. The site has been previously graded. The project is considered "inffil" with development existing to the north, south, and west. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.b. No. The proposal will not result in a reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species of plants. There are no unique or rare, threatened or endangered species of plants on the site, therefore, none will be significantly affected (Reference response 4.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. Development of the site will not result in the creation of a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species due to the fact that the project is considered "in-fall" and is surrounded by existing development to the north, south and west. Although the projgct proposes species of plants which do not currently exist on the site, it is not being introduced into an area of native vegetation. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.d. No. The proposal will not result in a reduction in the acreage of any agricultural crop. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project since no prime farmland, farmland of statewide or local importance, or unique farmland is located within the project site. AnimalLife No. The project will not result in a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of species of animals nor will it deteriorate existing fish or wildlife habitat. The site has been previously graded. The project is considered "in~ll" with development existing to the north, south, and west. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.b. No. The project site is located within the Stephens Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Area. Previous site surveys conducted in the area have determined the SKR is not present in this areas. However, all development within the Conservation area is required to pay mitigation fees which mitigate the historical impacts to the SKR in this region. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5 .c,d. No. The proposal will not result in the introduction of any new wildlife species into the area nor will it result in a barrier to the migration of animals. The site has been previously graded. The R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC '1/19/95 car 5~ project is considered "infill" with development existing to the north, south, and west. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Noise 6.a,b,c. Yes. The proposal will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currenfiy vacant and any development of the land would result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. The project may expose people to severe noise levels and vibrations during the development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. The types of business that will locate within the commercial center are not anticipated to generate noise levels that would be considered significant by adjacent residential homes. The exposure to severe vibrations will be of short duration and will also not be considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Li~,ht and Glare Yes. The project site is located within the Mount Palomar Observatory Special Lighting District. The lighting standards within this district require that only low pressure sodium street and security lights be installed and all other lighting must be oriented or shielded to reduce the glare in the night sky near the observatory. The impact of the additional light and glare will be mitigated by following the standards of the Mount Palomar Observatory Special Lighting District (Ordinance No. 655) and through the appropriate design of the lighting system. Land Use 8.a. Yes. The proposal will alter the present land use of the area, because the site is currently vacant. The proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation for the site which identifies the site as Community Commercial. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. No. The proposal will not result in an alteration to the future planned land use of the site as described in the City's General Plan. Reference response 8.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Natural Resources 9.a.b. Yes. The proposal will result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource or in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s). Development of the site will result in an increase in the rate of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. R:\STAFFRP'F%95PA94.PC 1/19/95 oaf 59 Risk of Upset lO.a,b. Yes. Prior to the on-site storage, transport, or disposal of any hazardous substances clearance shall be obtained from the Riverside County Health Department and the Riverside County Fire Department. The project will be conditioned to insure that the project complies with all recommendations of these agencies. The mitigations proposed by these agencies will reduce the potential impacts below a level of significance. 10.c. 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 Sheriff Department. Population 11. Yes. The proposed commercial center will generate a significant number of new jobs which will result in a cumulative impact on the regional population. However, the impact of the project is considered to be a positive impact which will result in the creation of variety of employment opportunities for the region. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12. Yes. The proposed cormnercial center will generate a significant number of new jobs which will result in a cumulative impact on the regions housing supply. However, the existing and anticipated housing supply is considered to be adequate to supply any increased in demand. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Transportation/Circulation 13.a. Yes. The proposal will result in the generation of substantial additional vehicular movement. The applicant has submitted a traffic report which recommends mitigations such as street improvements and traffic signal installation. The required mitigations will reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. 13.b. Yes. The project will result in an increased demand for new parking. City ordinance requires that the project provide a total of 1,311 parking spaces. The project proposes to construct a total of 1375 parking spaces. The surplus of 64 parking spaces will reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. 13.c. No. The proposal will not create impacts upon existing transportation systems, including public transportation. The project will include an area for a bus stop facility. However, the Riverside Transportation Agency (RTA) does not have plans to use the facility at this time due to a lack of demand for such a facility. At such time as the bus turn is need by the RTA, the facility will be available. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.d. Yes. The proposal will result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods. The site is currently vacant. People travelling to a site that was previously vacant will logically alter the present circulation pattern. As mentioned in response No. 13.a., the R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 oaf 60 project is required to construct street improvements that will adequately handle the anticipated increase in traffic. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.e. No. The proposal will not result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic since none exists curren~y in the proximity of the site and none are proposed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.f. Yes. The proposal will result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. The hazards will increase as the project develops due to increased activity on the site. As stated in response No. 13.a., the project will construct street and signal improvements that will adequately handle the anticipated increase in motor vehicles, bicyclist and pedestrians. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Public Services 14.a.b. No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire or police protection. Both agency have reviewed this project and have not stated that additional facilities would be needed as a result of this project. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.c,d. No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered school or park facilities. Existing and proposed school and park facilities are sufficient to handle the long term needs of the community. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e. Yes. The proposal will result in a need for the maintenance of public facilities, including roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant. This is because the Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 14.f. No. The proposal will not have a substantial affect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Energy 15.a. No. The proposal will not result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. As mentioned in responses 9.a. and 9.b. the proposal may result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource or the depletion of any nonrenewable resource. Development of the site will result in an increase in the rate of use of natural resources (construction materials, fuels for daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. 15.b. No. The project will not result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, nor will the project require the development of new sources of energy. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT~95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 61 Utilities 16.a No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. The project site is within proximity of existing facilities. The project is in-fill, with existing development to the north, south and west. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.b. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.c. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to water systems. Reference response 3.h. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.d. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to sanitary sewer systems. The project is located within Eastern Municipal Water Districes (EMWD) sanitary sewer service area. Based upon information contained in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report, adequate facilities exist (and are proposed) which will adequately service the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.e. No. As part of the AD 159 drainage improvements, regional storm drain improvements are currently being constructed within the boundary of this project. The project will utilize these new facilities which will adequately had the needs of this project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.f. No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 16.g. No. The proposal will not result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system improvements for any of the above. (reference response No. 16.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Human Heal~ 17.a. Yes. The project has the potential to store hazardous materials on the project site. Prior to the storage of any hazardous materials at the site, a plan for their use and disposal shall be submitted to the City, County Health and County Fire Departments which will mitigate this impact to below a level of insignificance. 17.b. No. The project is not located near sensitive receptors. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1119195 caf 62 18.a. No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public. The project is considered in-fill, with development located to the north, south and west. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18.b. No. The proposal will not result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. While the residences located to the south will view this project, landscaping and building articulation will provide buffers to existing view corridors. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 18.c. No. The proposal will not result in detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area. Reference response 18.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Recreation 19. No. The proposal will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. Reference responses No. 11 and 12. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 20.a. No. The proposal will not result in the alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric, archaeological or historic s. ite. According to the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report, this project is located in an area of low sensitivity for both archaeological and paleontological resources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 20.b. No. The proposal will not result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object. Reference response 20.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 20.c. No. The will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. No "unique" ethnic cultural values exist on-site or in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. No. The proposal will not result in restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. None currently exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipamd as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPTX95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 6;3 IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIlYlCANCE Does the project have the potential to either: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish, wildlife or bird species, cause a fish, wildlife or bird population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal species, 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, environmental 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 cumulatively 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 substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINIMUS" IMPACT FINDINGS Yes Does the project have the potential to cause any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife is defined as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends on for it's continued viability" (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code). _ X X X X N_9_o X R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 car 64 ENVIRONMENTAL DETFJLMINATION 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 significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because the Mitigation Measures described on the attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Prepared by: Craig D. Ruiz. Assistant Planner Name and Tifie Date R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94.PC 1/19/95 caf 65 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRPT\95PA94,PC 1/19/95 cef 66 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA94-0095, CUP AND PA94-0097, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27987 EXHrRIT ~ A VICINITY MAP oLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 23, 1995 R:\RUIZC\STAFFRPT~95PA94.1ES 1/18/95 cdr CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) VL VL EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - COMNIUNrrY COMMERCIAL CASE NO. - PA94-0095, CUP AND PA94-0097, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27987 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 23, 1995 R:\RUIZC\STAFFRPT\95PA94.1ES 1/19/95 cdr