HomeMy WebLinkAbout110695 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
November 6, 1995, 6:00 PM
Rancho California Water District's Board Room
42135 Winchester Road
Temecula, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ford
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Miller, 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 Commissioners about an item nor listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be
filled out and filed with the Commission Secretary.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address.
For 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
2. Director's Hearing Approval
Approval of minutes from the June 5~ 1995, Planning Commission meeting
Approval of minutes from the July 17, 1995, Planning Commission meeting
Approval of minutes from the August 7, 1995, Planning Commission meeting
Approval of minutes from the August 21, 1995, Planning Commission meeting
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA95-0097 (Public Use Permi0
Malinda Smith c/o ABC Pre-School
Solana Way, approximately 1,300 square feet east of the intersection of
Margarita Road and Solana Way
An approximately 19,200 foot preschool facility and a reduction in the
required amount of parking from 102 parking spaces to 92 parking
spaces
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Matthew Fagan
Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
PA95-0088 (Plot Plan)
Opti-Forms
Southwesterly corner of Winchester Road and Call Emplcado
The construction of an approximately 24,500 square foot office and
manufacturing building
Proposed Negative Declaration
Craig Ruiz
Approve
R:XWIMBERVOXPLANcoMM~AOE/qDASXI0-16-95 1112/95 vgw 1
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
PA95-0096 (Plot PIn)
999 Corp.
28S45 Front Street
The demolition and reconstruction of an approximately 6,600 square foot
commercial building.
Environmental Action: Proposed Negative Declaration
Planner: Craig Ruiz
Recommendation: Approve
PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINE.~
Next meeting: December 4, 1995 - Regular Planning Commission meeting
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM #2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
November 6, 1995
Director's Hearing Case Updat~
The following case was appmved at the planning Director's Hearing in October 1995:
October 5
PA94-0118
· TPM 28049, Condominium Subdivision
Quality Associates
Attachment:
1. Action Agenda for October 1995 - Blue Page 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ACTION AGENDA
ACTION AGENDA
TEMECULA DIRECTOR'S I~F.~RING
REGULAR Mi~ETING
OCTOBER 5, 1995 1:30 PM
TEM~CULA CITY tLATff. - MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CAT J- TO ORDER:
John Meyer, Senior Planner
PUBLIC CO~S
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 Soulor 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.
Case No:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Case Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. 94-0118 (Tentative Parcel Map No.
28049)
Quality Associates, Inc.
West of Pujol Street, approximately 2,200 feet south of the
intersection of 1st and Pujol Streets
A one parcel condomlninm subdivision
Categorical Exemption
Matthew Fagan
Approval
ACTION:
APPROVED
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM #3
MINUTES FROM THE
JUNE 5, 1995
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECLrLA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 5, 1995
A meeting of the City of Temeeula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, June
5, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho Caiifomia Water Disttict's Board Room, 42135 Winchester
Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to order.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Ford, Webster
ABSENT: COM/vlISSIONERS: Fahey
Also present were Harming Director Gary Thornhill, Attorney Peter Thorson, Senior Planner
John Meyer, Senior Planner Debbie lYonoske, Associate Planner David Hogan, Public Works
Director Joe Kicak, Assistant Engineer John Pourkazemi, Recording Secretary Joan Price.
Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:10 P.M.
Chairman Ford called for Public Comments on non-agenda items. There were no comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Blair to approve
the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Ford, Webster, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
2. DIRECTOR' S HEARING ITEMS
None.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3. Development Code
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
continue the Development Cede Review to the Planning Commission meeting on June
19, 1995.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 5, 1995
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Ford, Webster, Fahey
NOES: 0 COIvlMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
4. Planning Application No. PA95-0034 (Plot Plan) - Medical Design Concepts
Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske presented the staff report on a 309,213 square foot
building at the northwest comer of Winchester Road and Diaz Road. Planner Ubnoske
stated that a full traffic study is needed and recommended continuing this item to June
19, 1995.
The Public Hearing was opened at 6:15 P.M.
Scott Staling, 3010 N. Broadway, Escondido, representative for Lusardi Company
answered questions from the Commission.
Max Harrison, 41975 Winchester Road, representative for one applicant, spoke regarding
conditions of the traffic study and the desire to begin grading prior to the completion of
the study with the approval of the Commission.
Planning Director Thornhill responded that the applicant would have to agree to an open-
ended condition if the Commission permitted them to go ahead with the grading.
Craig Wol fmeyer, 31607 Old River Road, Bon sail, representative for PHS explained that
vehicular trips would be minimal because staff is transferring from Business Park Drive
to the new site.
Commissioner Ford requested mitigation on the traffic study be implemented prior to
occupancy.
The Public Heating was closed at 6:30 P.M.
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern with traffic congestion if in the future the
business is expanded and employed additional staff.
Commissioner Blair asked if staggered work hours had been considered.
Chairman Ford recommended this item be acted on tonight and not continued.
It was moved by Commissioner Slavea and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to hear and
move on Planning Application No. PA95-0034 tonight with no continuance.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 5. 1995
Commissioner Webster spoke in opposition to making a decision tonight and requested
the traffic study be completed.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Ford, Fahey
NOES: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Webster
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Senior Planner John Meyer described the Transportation Easement which begins at
Winchester Road, and runs north through Diaz Road to the Murrieta border.
Commissioner Webster expressed concern on colors, shapes, and sizes of buildings, walls
and windows as provided in the City's Draft Development Code on Page 26 # 2,3,4, and
would like this project to comply with the standards as set.
Commissioner Fahey expressed concern on the landscaping design along the wall.
Commissioner Ford asked for Mr. Wolfmeyer's agreement on the conditions of approval
for this project. Mr. Wolfmeyer responded that he was in agreement.
The motion was made by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven
to adopt PA95- with conditions as follows:
* Specific language to address the large walls of the building.
* Mitigation on the traffic study and the Transportation Easement.
Commissioner Webster recommended future industrial buildings be required to comply
with the City' s performance standards in accordance with design elements.
Planning Application No. PA95-0031 - Environmental Impact Report
Planning Application No. PA94-0061 - Master Conditional Use Permit
Planning Application No. PA95-0003 - Westside Specific Plan/Planning Application No.
PA95-0004 - Tentative Tract Map No. 28011
Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented an update on the questions asked at the
previous Commission meeting. Assistant Planner Fagan also read a letter from Kay
Cassaro thanking the Commission for their caution on approving planning applications
and for their representation of the community.
Planner Dave Hogan presented the air quality report for Temecula.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 5. 1995
Commissioner Blair asked how the numbers regarding air quality were generated and if
there are air quality violations in Temecula. Dave Hogan responded there were no
violations in Temecula.
Commissioner Webster requested an update on the proposed road improvements, and also
consideration for a Condition of Approval to address the area between Pujol Street and
Main Street.
Commissioner Webster recommended Area D in the Westside Specific Plan be
incorporated in Area F to become additional open space.
Chairman Ford called for a recess at 8:00 p.m.
The meeting of the Temecula Planning Commission was re. convened at 8:10 p.m. Chairman
Ford presiding.
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern regarding the proposed mitigation of intersection
congestion at Raneho California/I-15 off-ramp, and 6th Street in Temecula which will
be utilized as a parking facility.
Assistant Engineer John Pourkazemi responded that the Raneho California Road project
is 80% designed and will be structured to include a widened road.
Commissioner Ford expressed several concerns to staff:
The plan does not call for interim traffic controls at Vincent Moraga and Dial
He feels construction should be completed with the project.
The south bound on ramp from the 1-15 should loop immediately onto Rancho
California and east bound.
The signal at Diaz Road and should be redesigned synchronized with the Western
By-Pass Corridor.
Conditions of Approval should include that construction shall be completed prior
to occupancy.
The impact of alignment area C & D in Westside Specific Plan.
The siopes in Area D.
Elimination of Area D.
The undercrossing at Highway 79 South interchange should be widened and he
recommended the addition of loop off-ramp.
P:XWIMBERVOX060595.I,C 10/24/9~ klb 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 5. 1995
Commissioner Slaven expressed the following concerns on the Master Conditional Use
Permit:
Condition #18 - regarding silt fences during construction,
recommends a different type of fencing.
Condition #42 & #43 - delete wording "as deemed necessary by the Planning
DirectoF.
Condition #43 - 2rid bullet item - should be conditioned to make contribution to
interchange enhancement on Hwy 79.
Condition #57 - 2nd bullet item - take out may change and replace with shall.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commission Webster to
recommend that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA95-0031 -
Environmental Impact Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
The motion carried as follows:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven, Ford, Webster, Fahey
NOE&
1 COMMISSIONERS: Blair
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
For the record - Commissioner Blair stated she voted 'no", due to air-quality concerns
not being adequately addressed and is in disagreement with the trip calculations which
address the traffic conditions.
Commissioner Blair expressed the following concerns in regard to the Master Conditional
Use Permit:
She opposes decision not to install a signal at Vincent Moraga.
She feels the Highway 79 improvements should be complete prior to occupancy.
The applicant's slated opening date is October, 1996; other schedules indicate
another date these need to be consistent.
She questioned if the conditions agreed to by the proponent to enhance 79
South/I-15 interchange are in addition to Assessment District 159. This is not
identified.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 5. 1995
Commissioner Ford expressed the following concerns with the Master Conditional Use
Permit:
- Page 56 - #43 relating to the site impact analysis; this should include verbiage to
require completion and a reimbursement agreement to the project area.
- He recommended that the City Council consider a requirement for completion of
all ultimate improvements to Highway 79 South/I-If.
- He recommended City Council consider including, as a condition the completion,
the South bound loop improvement, connection with Front Street and the Western
By-Pass prior to occupancy.
moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve
- Master Conditional Use Permit with the
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Ford, Webster, Fahey
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
PA95-0003 (Westside Specific Plan), PA95-001M (Tentative Tract Map No. 28011),
DV95-0001 (Development Agreement) Commissioner Fahey agreed that Area D in the
Westside Specific Plan should be changed to open space.
Commissioner Fahey noted for the record that all traffic items approved in previous
conditions and applications be included in the Westside Specific Plan.
Commissioner Slaven agreed Area D should be changed to open space.
Commissioner Fahey agreed Area D should be changed to open space.
Commissioner Webster agreed Area D should be changed to open space.
Commissioner Ford agreed Area D should be changed to open space.
The Commission upheld the following conditions prior to approval of the Westside
Specific Plan:
The preliminary grading plan to be returned to the Commission for approval
when submitted.
It was
Planning Application No. PA94-0061
Conditions as stated.
The motion can'ied as follows:
5
0
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING .IUNE 5. 1995
A suggested timeline - "within 30 days" to be added as language in regard to the
Western By-Pass.
The maps and findings showing Area D are to be changed to designate that area
as Open Space.
The height and color of the arena is to be shown when the plot plan is brought
back to the Commission.
Items 4, 5, 7, 8, in the Development Agreement be included in the project
requirements.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve
the Westside Specific Plan, PA95-0003 and Tentative Tract Map No. 2801 I, Planning
Application No. PA95-0004 and DV95-0001 with the stated conditions approved by the
Commission.
The motion earfled as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Ford, Webster, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Next meetings: June 19, 1995, 6:00 p.m. - Development Cede and July 17, 1995, 6:00 p.m. -
Development Code at the Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester
Road, Temecula, California.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
None.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Planning Director Thornhill discussed the cancellation of the July 3, 1995 meeting due
to the July 4th holiday. This will be determined at the June 19 meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
None.
PLANNING COMMISSION
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
JUNE 5. 1995
Chaixman Steve Ford
Secretary
P:.XWlMBK~VGX06~9S.PC 10t25~9S I~ 8
MINUTES FROM THE
JULY 17, 1995
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF A REGULAR ME-~TING
OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 17, 199~
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on
Monday, July 17, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District's Board Room,
42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford called the meeting to
order.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Webster, Ford
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Slaven, Miller
Also present were planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz, Senior
Planner Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner John Meyer, Public Works Director Joe Kicak, and
Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Commissioner Ford reported that Commissioner Shven has notified the Commission of her
absence this evening.
1. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve
the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONttRS: Fahey, Webster, Ford
NOBS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSBI~IT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Shven, Miller
2. Approval of Minutes
The Commission took action on each set of minutes separately.
2.1 April 3. 1995. Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve
the minutes of April 3, ]995, with the following corrections:
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .H3LY 17. 1995
* Page 6: correct Commissioner Fahey's vote to AYE.
* Page 4: Development Code discussion 3rd line - Commissioner Webster stated
density not lot size.
* #3 - public item: add - had not been accepted for maintenance.
2.2 April 17. 1995 Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve
the minutes of April 17, 1995 with the following corrections:
* Page 2: Correction -Dr. Robinson shared a presentation.
* Page 3: Correction - Add - Mr. Fergus requested the Commission make a
decision tonight.
* Page 4: Correction - Add - Commissioner Webster also requested an increased
open space buffer on the property.
* Page 4: Correction - Add - Commissioner Ford felt that questions had not been
resolved and were not approved on the Fiscal Impact Report.
2.3 May 1. 1995 Approval of Minutes
* The minutes of May 1, 1995 were continued to the August 7, 1995 meeting.
2.4 May 15.1995 Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve
the minutes of May 15, 1995 with the following corrections:
* Page 5: Correction - Commissioner Webster stated the tree requirement should
be to provide shade on a year-round basis.
* Page 7: C6rreetion - Add a finding that the purchase is Transportation related.
* Commissioner Ford requested an added comment that tree sizes and uniformity
should be included in the landscape plan.
2.5 June 19. 1995 Approval of Minutes
It was moved by Comminsioner Webster, seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve
the minutes of June 19, 1995 with Commissioner Fahey abstaining, with the following
corrections:
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 17. 1995
Correction - Add where Commissioner Webster stated the tree requirements
should be on a year-round basis to provide shade.
The motion carried as follows:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Webster, Ford
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONBRS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven, Miller
Selection of a Commission Member to serve on the Consultant Selection Interview
Committee for the Design Guidelines Proposal.
Chairman Ford nominated Commissioner Webster to serve on the Consultant Selection
Interview Committee. The Commission unanimously approved the nomination.
PUBLIC ~rF. ARING ITEMS
Plannim~ Application No. PA94-0128 (Conditional Use Permit)
Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the background for this application. He
stated it had been on hold at the request of the applicant. Assistant Planner Fagan
reported on the revised State Law license requirements for the sale of beer and wine.
Staff recommended approval of PA94-0128 and 95- as modified to include condition of
appwval 66, the financial cost agreement.
Assistant City Attorney Diaz discussed the statutes on alcohol related issues. He also
discussed moratoriums on issuance of new alcoholic beverage licenses and licenses that
could be transferred from another party. Attorney Diaz cited the steps to be token this
evening:
1) Can take testimony.
or
2) Approve Conditional Use Permit as submined with revisions.
or
3) Deny Conditional Use Permit based on moratorium.
Comminsioner Ford anked Assis{ant Planner Matthew Fagan to x~-t~eat condition of
approval #66B.
Commi.~sioner Webster asked, regarding Condition #63, ff requirements have been put
on the developer to help fund the Rancho CalifOrnia Road bridge. Public Works Director
Joe Kicak responded that ff an impact is created by the pwject, the applicant may need
to contribute their fair share for mitigation.
PLANNING COMMIgSION MINUTES JULY 17. 1995
Chairman Ford opened the Public Comments at 6:35 PM.
Ray Beniboali, 17700 Cas~eton//500, representative of Unocal Coqnoration stated that
in order to improve services to the community, the applicant requests the addition of
three (3) gasoline pumps and construction of a mini-mart.
Stephon Jamieson, 426 Culver Blvd., Los Angeles, attorney for Unocal, spoke
concerning the alcoholic beverage license and distributed copies of a transferred license
which the applicant obtained.
Barry Hammond, 3 Hutton Centre #711, Santa Ana, representative for Unocal, spoke
concerning benefits for the community of this project in tens of attractiveness and
convenience.
Michael Brewer, 44113 Northgate Avenue, Temeeula, spoke in favor of a mini-mart at
the Unocal Station.
Irwin Weinhaus, 28250 Front Street, Temecula, representative for From Street
Associates, expressed concern about traffic blockage of the ingress and egress to the
businesses on Front Street if this project should be approved. lie also stated there are
three (3) existing convenience stores within 1/4 of a mile of the proposed project.
Sal Munoz, 28581 Fwnt Street, Temecuia, spoke hi opposition to the Unocal pwject,
stating the appearance of the existing Unocal was much improved since opening and that
it will not enhance the area to re-build. Mr. Munoz said he feels it is not good planning
to have a mini-mart on every corner of Front Street.
Jerry Brockman, KHR Associates, Traffic Engineer for the pwject, pwvided statistics
on the traffic study completed. He stated the increased trips generated would be 50 cars
during the peak hours from 4:15 PM - 5:15 PM. The plan is to close one driveway on
Front Street and one on Moreno Road, creating less potential for conflict.
Commissioner Miller arrived at 7:00 PM.
Commissioner Fahey expressed concern with adding a mini-mart at this location.
Comminsioner Ford expressed concern with the trash enclosures and recommended a
block enclosure at the back side of the building on Moreno Road. The applicant
responded that he would work with the planning Dep~uhuent.
Commissioner Ford requested information on the vehicle trips generated. The Traffic
Engineer for the applicant responded that trips generated with a mart would be 17.47
vehicles per hour at the peak hour of 4:15 PM - 5:15 PM., without a man it is 16.3
vehicles per hour.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 17. 1995
Commissioner Webster asked the applicant about the dedication requirement for four feet
on Front Street and twelve feet on Rancho California Road. He inquired should the City
need to use this frontage would the applicant be willing to improve the easement. The
applicant answered yes, landscape would be provided.
Commissioner Webster commented he is not in favor of the type of plants and tre~s
chosen for this site. The applicant stated that he would work with staff to come up with
a suitable iandscal:~ plan.
Commissioner Ford requested clarification on Condition 66B, ff the potential widening
of Railthe California Road bridge would require a contribution from the applicant. The
applicant responded this had never been discussed and would require discussion with
Unocal Company.
Stephen Jamieson, representative for the applicant, responded this location is unique in
nature due to the flow of traffic and can provide a service, such as gasoline, which other
mini-malB do not. Mr. Jamieson reported for the record that the alcohol 'lic.~nse
obtained by transfer was a type 21 which allows for the sale of beer/wine and other
liquors, but to be in compliance with the Conditional Use Permit, they propose to sell
only beer/wine.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 7:43 PM.
Commissioner Webster expressed concern that the site is not large enough for the
proposed food mart as designed. He recommended the applicant and staff work together
to fred a solution by designing a smaller building or no building at all.
Commissioner Miller expressed concern with the color of the roof tile and would like to
see samples. He also stated that the existing landscaping was more att:-aetive than the
proposed plan, he recommended the applicant work with staff on this.
Commissioner Fahey expressed concern that the size of the building, cuts into the
existing landscape area leaving little room on the site.
Commissioner Ford stated the following concerns:
,
,
Unocal is one of the last full service stations in Temecula.
The size of the building should be reviewed with staff due to future improvements
in the CIP, and design that is best for the city and for the site.
Old Town businesses are usually closed by 10:00 PM in conflict with beer and
wine sales.
He doesn't feel a decision should be made tonight.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 17. 1995
The applicant addressed the Commission and requested this be heard prior to the August
:21, 1995 meeting due to their fiscal year end. The applicant agreed with reducing the
size of the building and agreed to shorter beer/wine sales.
Comminsioner Ford stated that it would be to the applicant's advantage to have a full
Commission in attendance to hear this application.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Webster to continue
PA No. PA94-0128 (Conditional Use Permit) to the August 21, 1995 meeting of the
planning Commission.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Ford, Webster, Fahey, Miller
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COIVHVIISSIONERS: Shven
The Commission recommended the following for staff and applicant review:
* Specify plants to be used taking into consideration the streetscape in Old Town.
* The building size should be altered.
* The amount of landscaped area should be increased or kept to what currently
exists.
* Consider keeping the existing Olive Tree. Define the minimum caliper and
height not just the specification of 24" box size of the trees.
* Revisions to site plan and traffic circuhtion should be given further consideration.
* Location and screening issues on the trash containers need to be addressed.
* The applicant should provide samples of roof tile color.
* The population and city size listed in the documents is to be updated to reflect
correct figures.
The meeting was reconvened at 8:25 PM.
Chainnan Ford called for a recess at 8:15 PM.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 17. 1995
5. Development Code
Senior Planner John Meyer presented a review of the proposed Development Code which
includes city-wide consistency zoning replacing the county-wide zoning for the City of
Temecuh. Senior Planner Meyer highlighted the commercial zoning areas and the
changes being recommended.
Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 8:37 PM.
Dennis Chiniaeff, 27555 Ynez Road, t~presenting Kernper Properties, spoke on the
following:
* Item 1 group 1 -in favor of MSC zoning.
* Item 2-in favor of Business Park zoning on both sides of the street, not just the
east side as proposed by staff.
* Single Oak Drive-in favor of a Light IndusUial zoning instead of Business Park.
* Pala Rd/Hwy 79 in favor of extending the zoning to the Kemper owned property.
Mark Tefford, 41735 Winchester Road, ~presenting Rancho California Business Center
and Industrial area, spoke in favor of staff recommended zoning designations with one
exception on Enterprise Circle No~h from Santa Genudes East, he favored an SC
designation.
Charley Black, 39727 Knoll Ridge Drive, Nelson & Nelson Properties, spoke in
opposition to re-zoning to MSC designation on Enterprise Circle North.
Ken Barnes, 39615 Berenda Road, spoke regarding the zone designation east of the
French Valley Airport.
Jeff Mink|er, 28936 Front Stn~, spoke in favor of changing the lot size from 40,000
square feet to 20,000 square feet for business properties.
LaITy ~VIarkham, 41750 Winchester Road, representing Eli Lily, spoke in opposition to
group 3 re-zoning at Winchester/Yncz Roads and in favor of Business Park designation.
Max Harrison, 41975 Winchester Road, spoke in favor of a designation of Service
Commercial on the south west comer of Winchester/Diaz Road.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 9:10 and recommended continuance of this matter
to August 21, 1995. ,~
Staff anked for direction from the Commission to advefiise the continuanee of the
Development Code Hearing to August 21, 1995.
Commissioner Fahey recommended the Commi.~sion go through each General Plan
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 17. 1995
Amendment to give individual direction.
The Commission gave the following direction to staff on Public Noticing.
1. Business Park land use be included for the Westside of the Western bypass.
2. Highway Tourist Commercial for Pala Road/Hwy 79 South to designate the
office/professional on the east side of the highway to tourist commercial.
3. The area of Enterprise Circle North designation changed from Service
Commercial to Business Professional.
4. The southwest comer of Winchester/Diaz from Business Professional to Service
Commercial.
Additional direction to staff was given to staff as follows:
* Group 1 #1 - Staff will provide additional information and the map at the next
meeting for the Commission's review.
* Group 1 ~f2-8 - The Commission is agreeable to proposed changes.
* Group 2 - The Commission is agreeable to proposed changes.
* Group 3 #9 - The Commission is ag,eeable to proposed changes.
* Group 3 #10 - The Commission is agreeable to pwposed changes. Commissioner
Fahey abstained.
* Group 4 - #11 - The Commission is agreeable to proposed changes.
It was moved by Commi.~sioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Miller to continue
the review of the Development Code to the meeting of August 21, 1995.
The motion carfled as follows:
COMMITTI~ MEMBERS: Ford, Miller, Fahey, Webster
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: None
COIVlI~TJ'K~ MEMBERS: Shven
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1
DIRECTOR'S R~,PORT
Banning Director Ga~j Thornhil~l Et~orted on the following:
PLANNING COMMISSION IV!I~JTES
The Consultants will be interviewed to provide design guidelines.
JULY 17. 1995
Meetings are scheduled for the Westside Specific Plan regarding the Western By-Pass
Road and how to accommodate the plan. This will be brought hack to the Commission
for review.
He stated, EIR's have been requested on 78 projects to date this year.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Fahey reported on the awards received for the General Plan Consistency
Program and the Old Town Specific Plan which makes Old Town eligible for a State
Commissioner Ford reported on the Commission Orientation be'me held and encouraged
Commissioner Miller to attend as a new Commissioner.
OTI:[FR BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey to adjourn at 9:45 PM.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will b~ held on
Monday, August 7, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Boaxd
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California..
Chairman Steve Ford
Secretary
MINUTES FROM THE
AUGUST 7, 1995
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF A REGULAR ~ETING
OF ~ C11'~' OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 7, 1995
A regular meeting of the City of Temgcula planning Commission was calle~t to order on
Monday, August 7, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Ranthe California Water District's Board Room,
42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Vice Chairman Fahey called the meeting to
order.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Miller, Webster
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ford
Chairman Ford had requested an excused absence.
Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Associate Planner Saied Naaseh, Senior
planner Debbie Ubnoske.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
approve the agenda as mailed.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONbgS: Blair, Slaven, Webster, Miller
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Ford
2. Approval of Minutes from the May 1. 1995 Workshop
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
continue the minutes of the May 1, 1995, workshop to the August 21, 1995 meeting of
the City of Temecula planning Commi.~sion. ~
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
The motion carried as follows:
AUGUST 7. 1995
AYP_S: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1
DIRP_,CTORS UPDATE:
None.
COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Slaven, Webster, Miller
COMIV~SSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: Ford
4. Conceptual Grading Plan for Westside Specific Plan
planning Director Thornhill stated that the project plans were submitted within the 30 day
time limit and this will be brought back to the Commission on September 18, 1995 to
hear comments and recommendations from staff.
5. PA95-0023 - Revised Development Agreement
Associate Planner Naasah presented the revised agreement from the Van Daele
Development Company. Staff recommended approval.
Chairman Fahey opened the floor for public comment.
Brice Kitde, x~epresentative for the applicant stated he would answer any questions from
the Commission.
Chairman Fahey closed the public comment at 6:10 P.M.
The motion was made by Commissioner Siaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to
approve staff recommendation.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSP_,NT: I
COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Siaven, Webster, Miller
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONP_,RS: Ford
Planning Application No. PA95-0066 Variance
Associate Planner Naaseh presented the staff t~ljort.
Staff recommended denial
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 1995
Lou Kashmere, 29115 Front Street, owner/applicant, spoke in support of the variance.
He stated that his sign is below the elevation of other signs in parts of the city and he
doesn't feel variance requests are handled fairly.
Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Kashmere for claxification as it pertained to the existing
sign at the Texaco station. Mr. Kashmere responded that he entered into a 2-year
contract with the City with the intent that the sign would be installed at th~ higher
elevation on a trial basis. If the citizens of the city do not object to the higher elevation
it would be permitted to remain at 55 feet; if there were complaints, the applicant would
be required to lower it to 45 feet.
Chairman Fahey dosed the public hearing at 6:20 P.M.
Commi.~sioner Shven stated that it is not appropriate to make exceptions for a Variance.
She is in favor of a 45 foot high sign.
Commissioner Webster agreed with sign contwl and said he feels the sign would be
unacceptable. He stated that he is in favor of combining both signs on one pole.
planning Director Thornhill stated that the two signs in question are inconsistent with
City standards. Staff position is toward conservative sign control.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven, seconded by Commissioner Miller to deny the request.
The motion carried as follows:
4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Shven, Webster, Miller
NOBS:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Ford
7. PA95-0015 - Tentative Tract Map
Associate Planner Naasah presented background on the proposal. The density has been
reduced to 150 single family units. The request for annexation will be heard by the
Council on August 8 and has been filed with LAFCO. .,
The Commission reviewed the phns and maps with staff.
Commissioner Webster expressed concern regarding a requirement of the Fire
Depamnent to provide a secondary access if the project serves more than 35 units.
Commissioner Slaven expressed her opposition to the following:
Lack of a secondary access
P:.\WlM~ERVOX0~F/911~ 10t15~ klb 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 7, 1995
Lack of parking spaces for guests on "H" Street
Design of the project
Limited access to Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Driveway location on "A" Street
No stop sign at "A" Street
Commissioner Shven recommended this item be continued until it is heard by the
Council.
Commissioner Webster expressed concern with the height of the retaining walls.
Commissioner Fahey expressed concern on the issue of constructing parks o~y after
1,500 permits have been pulled.
Commissioner Miller referenced the ~ght path of French Valley Airport and asked what
could be done to make buyers understand it wffi be over the development. Staff
responded that it was not the City's responsibility to inform the buyer of this situation.
Chairman Fahey opened the public hearing at 6:45 P.M.
Sanford Edwards, Pulte Homes representative, 110 Newport Center Drive, highlighted
the constraints in regard to the design issues. He said the topography has dictated the
site hyout and Pulte has downsized the project from 360 lots to 146, and are also
concerned with limited guest parking. He also stated the driveways have been sized 12'-
16' which is larger than the standard driveway to accommodate the limited guest parking.
Commissioner Miller recommended in~a!lation of pedestrian sidewalks in the c~ de sac
area between lots. Mr. lidwards stated he would be willing to consider this option. He
also requested a vote by the Commission this evening since it will be heard by the
Council August 8, 1995.
Chairman Fahey closed the public heating at 7:10 P.M.
Commissioner Webster listed his main concerns with the project:
1)
2)
3)
4)
The length of "B" Street
The "H" Street cul de sac
Off site requix~ments for fencing
No secondary access for fire protection
AUGUST 7, 1995
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
5) No intersection on "E" Street
Commissioner Fahey agreed with those Listed.
Commissioner Slaven agreed with those Listed and is hesitant to go beyond the
requirement and reque~sts further clarification from the Fire Department.
planning Director Thornhill responded that the Fire Depamnent did not appear to have
a problem that there was no seconda~ access but clarification would be requested and
brought back to the Commission.
Commission consensus is that limited parking on the eul de sac is unacceptable, and also
the design of lot #123 is not acceptable and recommended a condition be stipulated in the
Agreement to that effect.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Planning Director Thornhill r~ported on the following:
· The applicant of the Ro'npaugh Specific Plan needs further direction from the
Commission. A workshop is recommended on September 11, 1995, 6:00 P.M.
· The p]anning Department is being reorganized as follows:
Gary Thornhill has been appointed to Community Development Director.
Debbie Ubnoske has been appointed to Planning Manager.
An Associate Planner will be appointed to Senior Planner.
An AssistaiR planner will be appointed to Associate Planner which will
ellmln~ttO one Assistant Planner position.
One Building & Safety Technician has been appointed to Code
Eaforcoment leaving one Building & Safety Technician. There are now
two Code Enforcement Officers which will provide stronger code
enforcement.
The one Building & Safety Technician and two Planning Technic'.mns will
be consolidated illto Community Development Technicians which will
provide more efficient countor coverage.
Temporary help will be contracted when additional staff is needed to
handle peak workloads. Customer service training will be conducted to
improve the level of service in all depaatments.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 199~
The appeal period has passed for litigation on the Old Town project. An
initiative in opposition to the use of public funds on the Old Town project is
being circulated.
During the design of the new City Hall, Councilmembers and the Commission
will be contacted for assistance in designing the meeting chambers.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Fahey requested the slams of the Johnson Ranch project. Director
Thornhill responded it is on hold and a meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, August 9,
1995. Any recommendations for changes W the pwject will come before the
Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner Shven to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 PM.
Next regular meeting, August 21, 1995, 6:00 P.M., Rancho California Water District's Board
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecuh, CalifOrnia,
Chairman Steve Ford
Secretary
MINUTES FROM THE
AUGUST 21, 1995
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF A REGULAR ME~ETING
OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 21, 1995
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on
Monday, August 21, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Raneho California Water Disttict's Board RoOm,
42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford presiding.
PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Webster, Shaven, Miller, Ford
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Attorney Greg Diaz, Senior Planner John
Meyer, Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan.
PUBLIC COlV!MI~-NT
None given.
CO1VIMI,qSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Shaven to ,approve
the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Shaven, Webster, Miller, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
Election of New Chairman and Co-Chnirman
Commissioner Shaven nominated Commi.~sioner Ford to serve as Chairman and
Commissioner Fahey to serve as Co-Chairman for the 1995/96 year of the Temecuh
Pinnning Commigsion. f
AYES: 3
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 2
COMMISSIONERS: Shaven, Webster, Miller
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIOn: Ford, Fahey
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21. 1995
3. Director' s Hearing Update
None given.
4. Approval of Minutes from the May 1. 1995 Planning Commission Workshop
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve
the minutes of the May 1, 1995 Planning Commission Workshop.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 2 COMIVIISSIONF_,RS: Slaven, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Webster, Miller
5. Draft MOU for BCI/CCL Ventures No. 1 and 2
Staff stated they have proVxded the Commission with information regarding the MOU and
are available to answer questions for the Commission.
There were no questions.
6. Appointment to Design Guidelines Technical Advisory Committee
Senior Planner John Meyer reported that one design finn has been selected from the 5
firms interviewed by the consultant team~ It is now required that two members of the
Commission will be appointed to the Technical Advisory Committee.
On a motion made by Commi.~sioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Fahey,
Commissioners Miller and Webster are appointed to the Design Guidelines Technical Advisory
Committee.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Miller, Ford
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: None
TEMECUIA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21. 1995
PUBLIC I~..~RING
7. Planning Application No, PA94-0128 (Conditional Use Permit)
Associate Planner Fagan presented background on the proposed Conditional Use Permit.
Staff recommended this apph'cation be continued to September 18, 1995.
On a motion made by Commissioner Slaven and sere, ended by Commissioner Fahey, the Planning
Application No. PA94-0128 (Conditional Use Permit) is continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of September 18, 1995.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Miller, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
8. PA95-0015 - Tentative Tract Map
Planning Director Thornhill requested this item be continued off calendar. The
annexation application has been delayed.
On a motion made by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven, the PA95-
0015 - Tentative Tract Map is continued off calendar. A joint workshop will be scheduled
between the City Council and the Planning Commission.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Miller, Ford
NOES: 0 COlVlMISSIONERS: None .~
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
9. PA95-0068 - Plot Plan
Associate Planner Fagall pre~ontod plans on Channel] Commercial Corporation's
proposed warehouse facility. Staff recommended approval.
Commissioner Miller expressed concern regarding the bus loading zone location and also
the landscaping plan in regard to the type of trees to be planted.
Commissioner Webster expressed concern regarding the type of trees that will be planted
and recommended evergreen trees be selected.
P:XWIMBRRVO~0~IgJ.PC 10/25/95 k~ 3
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21. 1~)5
A xx,--presentative for the applicant responded to questions by the Commission as follows:
* A letter has been sent to the bus company but an answer has not yet been
received. It is believed the bus stop is located across the street from the building.
* Landscaping will not be a problem, evergreen trees will be recommended to the
architect and mended plans wffi be submitted to staff.
Commi.~sioner Ford recommended that the architect work with staff to incorporate large
trees on the southern side, if this is agreeable to the Planning DLrector.
Julia Carroll, the representative for the architect responded that 50% of the trees wffi be
24" box in size and 50% will be 15" box or gallon in size, staff recommendation will be
incorporated in the final subraitted plan.
Chairman Ford op~ned the Public Heating at 6:30 PM.
None given.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 6:30 PM.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve
Planning Application No. PA95-0068 - Plot Plan, with an amendment that recommendations
made by the Commission be reflected in the fmal plan tO staff.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONF. Y,S: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Miller, Ford
NOF. S: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONF_J~: None
10 . Planning Application No. PA95-0048 (Conditional Use Permit - Texaco)
Commissioner Miller stepped down due to a possible conflict of interest.
Associate Planner Fagan presented the site plan which included a mitigation agreement
to inshffi deeeleration lane. Staff recommended approval.
Commissioner Webster asked ff a signal was required at Lyndie Lane. Staff responded
that it does not meet warrant criteria.
Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 6:45 PM.
Rich Tait, 1100 Town & Country Road, Orange, representing Texaco Refining &
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21. 1~)5
Marketing, clarified the following agreements:
* Signage wffi be a sepaxate issue and will be fmaliz~xl in a liter submittal.
* Negotiations for tenants have not been fLnaliTed.
* No dispity for beer and wine will be permitted within 5' of the register.
A traffic signal will be provided by the developer prior to
occupancy.
* Twenty-five (25) parking ~alis will be provided.
Commissioner Webster expressed concern regarding access on the north and west side
of the site access and recommended paving of this area. He aim asked if the bell tower
sign would be illuminated. Rich Tait, representative for Texaco, responded that asphalt
paving would be completed, a signal is currently in plan check and the bell tower will
be illuminated on all four sides.
Commissioner Ford expressed concern regarding the loading area for the supply tanks
and does not want private vehicles impeded by the trucks delivering gas. He
recommended additional spacing be planned to facilitate this problem.
Ted Harris, 10 UCP #100, Universal City, representing Texaco, assured the Commission
that their drivers were safety trained and will be restricted from making U rams. Staff
will work this out.
Ralph Suitsman, 426 Culver Blvd, Playa de Rey, representing Texaco, stated that he was
available to answer questions.
Jim Eacarella, 42680 Rancho California Road, expressed concern for traffic problems
that would be created without a signal at this intersection. He also asked ff the project
would continue if a beer and wine license could not be secured.
Ralph Saizman responded that a beer and wine license is a vital component and they
would be unable to go forward without one. This had been explored and licenses were
available for mmsfer. ~
Ted I-krris responded that Texaco would not otgn the station without a traffic signal
openling.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 7:15 PM.
Commissioner Webster recommended a signal be installed and also the bell towe= not be
illVminate~l.
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21. 1995
Commissioner Ford spoke in agr~ment that the station should not be op~ned without an
operating signal and recommended a condition of approval be required prior to
occupancy. The Commission agreed by unanimous consensus.
Staff will add an addendure COA #79 "a traJ~c signal will be installed and operable
prior to certificate of occupancy, this includes the median ".
The applicant spoke in favor of elimination of the illuminated sign on the north side.
Commissioner Webster reiterated he would like to see no illumination at all.
Commissioner Ford spoke in favor of no illumination on the back of the tower and
recommended wattage restriction on the remaining axeas.
Commissioner Fahey spoke in favor of no ~umination on the back and recommended
a condition that no sign be installed on the north side.
Commissioner Webster expressed concern on the noxlh and west side ~umination and
recommended the south and east side be ~uminated with low wattage controlled by the
planning Director.
Commissioners Fahey and Shven agree with that recommendation.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve
Planning Application No. PA95-0048 (Conditional Use Permit - Texaco) with conditions to
include:
* Site plan design to include truck delivery access.
* A stop light to be installed and operating prior to certificate of occupancy.
* The bell tower ~uminated on the south and east sides only.
The motion carded as follows:
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Shven, Webster, Ford
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: Miller
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: 1
Development Code
11.
Senior Phnner John Meyer presented the Development Code for discussion and
Commission direction. ·
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21. 1995
Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 8:30 PM.
Dennis Chinoff, 27555 Ynez Road, Kemper representative, spoke in favor of amending
the land use designation on the property in Areas #1, #14, #15.
Margaret Vallauo, 45921 Silverado Lane, spoke in opposition to zoning Pala Road &
Highway 79 as HTC designation.
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, spoke in opposition to Commercial designation
on Hwy 79 South and Jedediah Smith Road.
Harold Elkan, 5230 Carroll Canyon Road, San Diego, spoke in favor of #11 - Old Vail
Panners property to be zoned Commercial.
Commissioner Ford explained the Commission could not act on #11 because it ~vas not
on the agenda. City Attorney Diaz stated that a Closed Session could be scheduled in
order to hear this request.
Stephen A. Bieri, 417 Cannel Street//200, San Marcos, owner of Winchester Hills,
spoke in favor of mending the land use designation on the 550 acres from Business Park
to Service Commercial.
David Lowry, 27391 Jefferson, spoke in support of mending the land use dedgnation
for Winchester Hills from Business Park to Service Commercial.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 9:07 PM.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Comminsioner Miller, to notiee #16 -
Old Vail Ranch; and #17 - Winchester Hills. Comminsioner Ford requested additional input on
the traffic impact due to the Murrieta improvements.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5
NOBS: 0
COMMISSIONF, a~: Fahey, Shven, Webster, Miller, Ford
COMMISSIONEI~: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Commissioner Miller requested staff prepare a report on the pros and cons regarding a village
center overlay in the Winchester Hills area.
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMEND1Mk~'TS
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21. 199S
Section #1 General Plan Amendments
The following received consensus of approval of the Commission:
#1 - Senior Planner Meyer said this was not a r~corded map and he rc~luests an
opportunity to bring this back to the Commission.
#12 - No change
//13 - No change
#14 - Staff requests the opportunity for additional research and requests this be heard
by the Commission at a later time.
#15 - Approve Highway Tourist Commercial east of Pala/Office Professional West of
Pala.
#16 - Chairman Ford recommended this be reviewed by Counsel and a Closed Session
be scheduled.
Section/2 Z, onint~ Map
Approved Chaparral area change to Business Park
Approved Single Oak change from Business Park to Light Industrial
Approved North of Carriage Motor Drive change from Business Park to Light Industrial
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to continue the
zoning map to September 18, 199S. An additional meeting may be needed based on advertising
requirements.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Webster, Miller, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S ]~PORT
HOBO given.
TE~IECLqA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 21. 1995
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to adjourn the
meeting at 9:50 P.M.
Next meeting, September 11, 1995 Workshop for Roripaugh Ranch September 18, 1995 Regular
Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. at the Rancho California Water District's Board
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
Chairman Steve Ford
Secl~Jaly
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 6, 1995
Planning Application No. PA95-0097 (Public Use Permit)
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning
Commission:
4.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Department Staff recommends the Planning
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA95-0097;
ADOPT Resolution No. 95-__ approving Planning
Application No. PA95-0097 based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report;
APPROVE The Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA95-0097; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA95-0097, subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Malinda Smith c/o ABC Pre-School
R. F. Fleming c/o Engineering Ventures, Inc.
A 19,200 square foot pre-school facility and a parking
reduction from 102 parking spaces to 92 parking spaces
Solana Way, approximately 1,300 feet east of the
intersection of Margarita Road and Solana Way
R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
North: R-1 (One-Family Dwellings)
South: R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
East: R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
West: R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings)
Not requested
Medium Density Residential (7-12 dwelling units per acre)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Single-Family Residences
Vacant
RCWD Pump Site, Single-Family Residences
Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area: 2.56 gross acres
Total Site Area: 94,090 square feet
Building Area: 19,200 square feet (20%)
Outdoor Activity Areas: 27,372 square feet (29%)
Landscape Area: 13,900 square feet (15%)
Parking and Pavement Area: 33,618 square feet (36%)
Parking Required: 102 spaces
Parking Provided: 92 spaces
Standard: 70 spaces
Compact: 18 spaces
Handicap: 4 spaces
Building Height: 26 feet at pitch of roof
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA95-0097was submitted to the Planning Department on September
21, 1995. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on September 28,
1995, Planning Application No. PA95-0097 was deemed complete on October 12, 1995.
The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment between
October 16, 1995 and November 3, 1995.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a 19,200square foot pre-school facility and a parking space reduction
from 102 parking spaces to 92 parking spaces. The pre-school will employ approximately
forty (40) people and will have approximately 312 children attending the facility. Hours of
operation shall be between 6:00 am and 12:00 midnight Monday through Thursday and
between 6:00 am and 5:00 pm Friday and Saturday.
ANALYSIS
Site and Buildina Desian
The building has been designed with a residential character so it will be compatible with the
surrounding residential development. The building base color will be off-white stucco, with
Forest Green accent trim. The roof will be concrete tile which will look like a wood shake
roof. Trellises will be wood. The fence will be wrought iron and combination block and
wrought-iron. River rock will be used at the entrance to the project. The front of the building
will face Solaria Way and the project will take access from Solana Way at two points. The
project is conditioned to provide ultimate right-of-way improvements to Solana Way in front
of the project site, tapering into the existing improvements to the south. Grading for the site
R:~TAFTRPT~fT'PA95.l~C 1111/95 klb 2
will result in a balanced site; however, it will create the need for a retaining wall north of the
rear drive aisle. The wall will be a maximum of 5 1/2 feet in height.
Screenino and Landscapina
Staff had concerns about screening the project on its eastern border where it abuts existing
residences. California Pepper Trees are used in this area because they are an evergreen tree
and grow quickly. This will provide the screening necessary to the residences to the east.
Further, evergreen trees have been added in the front and rear of the project for screening.
Sycamore trees have been utilized in the front of the project, along Solaria Way, and this tree
choice is consistent with those trees used in the surrounding areas. Vines will be planted
along the retaining wall in order to prevent graffiti. Interior site landscaping has been provided
to break up the massing of the building and provide shade.
Parkinfi
The project requires 102 parking spaces per Ordinance No. 348. The project has 92 parking
spaces and the applicant has requested a reduction in the required number of parking spaces
(reference Attachment No. 5). In their formal request for a reduction, the applicant states:
"this facility is a drop-off and pick-up pre-school, and clients of this pre-school will not park
and stay for long durations of time." Drop-off and pick-up at the pre-school will be staggered.
The applicant further states that they will have approximately forty (40) employees. Staff
supports the reduction in required parking based upon the rationale provided by the applicant.
NoiSq
The project has been designed so that noise impacts from the play areas on existing and future
development in the area will be. minimized. The edge of the fence for the play areas is
approximately 60-65 feet from the property line. Hours of operation shall be between 6:00
am and 12:00 midnight Monday through Thursday and between 6:00 am and 5:00 pm Friday
and Saturday. The project is conditioned so that outdoor play areas will not be used until after
8:00 am and until dusk; thereby, reducing potential noise impacts on adjacent residences.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Existing zoning for the site is R-2 (Multiple-Family Residential). Currently, educational facilities
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 M (Medium Density Residential). 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." According to the Draft Development Code, schools and daycare
facilities will be conditionally permitted in the zone. Until the new 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
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; therefore Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a
Negative Declaration for the project.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project is for a 19,200 square foot pre-school facility and a parking reduction
from 102 parking spaces to 92 parking spaces. The landscape plan was reviewed by the
City's Landscape architect and it was determined that the project is consistent with City
Landscape Ordinances. In addition, the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and
Ordinance No. 348. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
FINDINGS
The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all applicable
requirements of state law and City ordinances. It is likely that the project will be a
permitted use within the General Plan Land Use designation of Medium Density
Residential (M). In addition, the project is permitted under the existing R-2 (Multiple
Family Dwellings) zoning provided a public use permit is granted.
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. Adequate buffering from existing and proposed residences which are
adjacent to the project site has been provided. The height and materials of the building
are similar to those found in surrounding residential developments.
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. The Initial Study prepared for the project determined that although
the proposed project 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.
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 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The height and materials of the
proposed building are similar to those found in surrounding residential developments.
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 (Solana Way).
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.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 19
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 36
Exhibits - Blue Page 47
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Landscape Plan
G. Floor Plan
Parking reduction request from applicant - Blue Page 48
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
]~:~STAFFP, l~97PA95.PC 11/2/95 Idb 6
ATrACHa/ffi-NT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
TltF. CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA95-0097 TO PERMIT ~
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN
APPROXIMATI~JJY 19,200 SQUARE FOOT PRE-SCHOOL
FACILITY LOCATED ON ~ SOUTH SIDE OF SOLANA
WAY, APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET EAST OF TItF.
INTERSECTION OF MARGAR1TA ROAD AND SOLANA
WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-330-
050
V~rl:I'EREAS, Malinda Smith fried planning Application No. PA95-0097 in accordance
with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Lqnd Use and Subdivision
Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning App~cation No. PA95-0097 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local hw;
WItF~REAS, the Planning Commission considered planning Application No. PA95-0097
on November 6, 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;
WtW~REAS, 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. PA95-0097;
NOW, TItEREFORE, ~ PLANNING COhlhIISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Fin(tines. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings, to wit:
1. The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. It is likely that the project will be a
permitted use within the General Plan Land Use designation of Medium Density Reside~tlal (lVl).
In addition, the project is permitted under the existing R-2 (Multiple Family Dwellings) zoning
provided a public use permit is granted.
R:~STAFFRl~97PA95.1~ 1111/95 klb 7
2. 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.
Adequate buffering from existing and proposed residences which are adjacent to the project site
has been provided. The height and materials of the building are similar to those found in
residential developments.
3. The proposed use or action complies with all other requirements of state
law and local ordinances. The proposed use complies with California Govemmental Code
Section 65360, Section 18.29 (Public Use Permit) of Ordinance No. 348.
4. 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. The Initial Study prepared for the project determined that although the
proposed project 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.
5. 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.
6. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The height and
materials of the proposed building are similar to those found in surrounding residential
developments.
7. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated fight-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic. Access to the project site is from a publicly maintained
road (Solaria Way).
8. The design of the project and the type of improvements axe such that they
are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project.
9. 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. 95-0097, 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.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. 95-0097 for the construction and operation of an
approximately 19,200 square foot pre-sehool facility located on the south side of Solana Way,
approximately 1,300 feet east of the intersection of Margarita Road and Solana Way and known
as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-330-050, 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 ADOPTED this 6th day of November, 1995.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I ltF. REBY 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 6th day of
November 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBI~- UBNOSKE
SECRETLY
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:',STAI~'P, IY~TPA95.!gaC 10/30/95 k~ 10
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA95-0097 (Public Use Permit)
Project Description: The construction and operation of an approximately 19,200 square
foot pre-school facility with a reduction in the required amount of parking per Ordinance
No. 348 from 102 parking spaces to 92 parking spaces
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-330-050
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA95-0097 is
for the construction and operation of an approximately 19,200 square foot pre-school
facility with a reduction in the required amount of parking per Ordinance No. 348 from
102 parking spaces to 92 parking spaces.
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 Planning
Application No. PA95-0097 (Public Use Permit) 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
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:~AFFR.P~97~A95.I~C 10~0~95 kJb 11
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, or as
amended by these conditions.
A. Ninety-two (92) parking spaces shall be provided.
B. A minimum of four (4) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
C. Eight (8) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E (elevations) and Exhibit
H (color elevations), or as amended by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit I (color and material
board), or as amended by these conditions.
Materials Color(s)
Concrete Tile (roof) Lifetile Country Shingle//5201 Stratford Blend - Brown
Wood (trim - accent)
Wood (trim - base)
Hardboard 6" lap, woodgrain siding
Stone
Stucco
Old Quaker #425 Forrest Green
Old Quaker//414 Off-White
Old Quaker//57 Beige-Peach
Cultured Stone River Rock "Lake Tahoe Blend"
La Habra Stucco//X-48 Meadowbrook
Landscape plans shall conform substantially with Exhibit F, or as amended by these
conditions.
Fencing shall conform substantially with Exhibit J, or as amended by these conditions.
Hours of operation shall be between 6:00 am and 12:00 midnight Monday through
Thursday and between 6:00 am and 5:00 pm Friday and Saturday.
10. Outdoor play areas shall not be used until 8:00 am and shall not be used after dusk.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
11.
12.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded
by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
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
13.
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.
14.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans 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. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The
cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site.
15. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
16.
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 Occupancy Permits
17. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
18. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
19.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
20.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
21.
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
R:~'TAFF~T~97PA95.1'C 10/30/95 kn, 13
22.
23.
24.
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.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Director to
guarantee the installation of planrings, 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.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
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.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
25.
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 (1994 editions due for adoption by September 1995).
26. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
27. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
28. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
29. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
30. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
31. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
32. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
33. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
10/30/95 t~b 14
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project. All conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government
Agency. 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
34.
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.
35. 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.
36.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
37. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
38.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed
and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
39.
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.
40.
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 Rood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
41.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
R:\STAFFRF~97PAgS.l~C 10130/95 klb 15
42.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also
analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific
recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading
or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access
easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the
Developer.
43.
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.
44.
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.
45.
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.
46.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review.
47.
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.
48.
An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
49.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
50.
Improve Solana Way to City street standards to include but not be limited to; widen
Solana Way 32 feet from centerline, installation of commercial driveway approaches,
contiguous sidewalks, signing, striping, parkway trees and street lights.
51.
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.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
R:~qTAFFRF~97PA95.FC 10/30/95 kJb 16
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
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.
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
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.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains.
A Traffic Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, and approved
by the Department of Public Works for construction of the improvements on Solana
Way. Traffic shall remain open at all times and the traffic control plan shall provide for
adequate detour during construction.
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of Solana Way in conformance with applicable City
Standards and subject to approval 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.
A Signing and Striping Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for Solana Way and shall be included in
the street improvement plans.
The Developer shall vacate abutter rights of access along Solaria Way pursuant to the
new location of the driveway.
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
R:',STAFFRF/~97PA95.PC 10/30/95 klb 17
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; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
58. 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
59.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
60.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans
and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
61.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of
Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
62.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittel dated October 2, 1995, a
copy of which is attached.
63.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittel dated October 9, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
64.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated October 2, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
65,
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Fire Department's transmittel dated October 30, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
R:~,~'TAFFILI~I~9?!mAgJ.~ 10/30/95 klb 18
TO;
FROM
RE:
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: October 2, 1995
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Matthew Fagan
GREGOR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV
PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. PA95-0097
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Public Use Permit No. PA95-
0097 and have no objecaons.
2. PRIOR TO PLAN CI-W~CK SUBMITTAL, the following items will be required:
a) A "will-serve" letter from the agency/agencies serving potable water and
sanitary sewers.
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
RECEIVED
OCT 12 1995
Im'L ..... ,
ltan
Water
October 9, 1995
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Depaxtment
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT: Water Availability, APN 921-330-050
Parcel Map 13271, PA 95-0097
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 rights, ff any, to RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact Janice Johnson.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Laurie Witlianas
Engineering Services Manager
wp95~LW'jJ:cb312/F186fFEG
cc: Janice Johnson, Enginccring Services Representative
Municipal Water District
OCT 0 6 1995
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Project Planner
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: PM 13271, Lots I & 2, ABC Preschool,
DIST/ D
Solaria Way
Dear Mr. Fagan::
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 proposal to
construct an approximate 29,000 sf. preschool facility on the south
side of Solana Way, approximately 1,300 feet east. of the
intersection of Margarita Road and Solana Way.
The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer
service area, however, it must be understood the available service
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 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).
The nearest existing TVRWRFsystem sanitary sewer facilities to the
subject project are as follows:
· 8-inch diameter gravity sanitary sewer aligned in Solana way.
Other Issues. ' "
The applicant shall coordinate with Ms. Cindy Crompton, District
New Business Representative at (909) 766-1822 for determination of
Mall to: Post Office Box 8300 San Ja~inm. California 92581-8300 * Telephone (909) 925-7676 " Fa (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto · Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oald~nd Avenue, Hemet, CA
Operations &: Maintenance Center:. 2270 Trumble Road, petris, C.A 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177
Mr. Fagan
City of Temecula
PM 13271
October 2, 1995
Page 2
fees, agreement and connection requirements. One-Stop processing
shall be coordinated through Ms. Judith Conacher at (909) 766-1810,
ext. 4409.
Should you have anyquestions regarding these comments, please feel
free to contact this office at (909) 925-7676, ext. 4468.
Sincerely,
EASTER/qMUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Kevin L. Crew
Senior Customer Service Engineer
LC/cz
AB'95-819
(wp-ntwk-PM13271.cLz)
[909) 694-6444 · Fax (909) 694-1999
October 30, 1995
TO:
PLANNING DEPARTNIENT
~rlN:
MA'rfH~W FAGAN
RE: PA95-0097
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
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fh-e Department 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 2500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2-2
1/2"), wffi be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion 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 Shah furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire
Depa~iment approval signature block, and Shall conform to hydrant type, location,
spacing and minimum fire flow. Once the plans axe signed by the local water company,
the originals shall be presented to the Fire Depa.hnent for signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shah be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the
job site.
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fife protection impacts.
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.
The building shall be equipped with a manual and automatic fire alarm system with
audio/visual devices for occupant notification and monitored to a U.L. approved remote
receiving station.
The occupant load for entire facility shall be established by using Table 33A in the
Uniform Building code. Classrooms used for Kindergarten and above may use minimum
20 square foot per child and infant to pre-school age shall be 35 square foot per child.
10.
Install a hood duct fire extingnishin~ system. Contact a cottitled fife protection company
for proper placement. Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to
installation.
11.
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).
12.
Install portable fn'e extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper phcoment.
13.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fife hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middie of the street directly in line with
fife hydrant.
14.
Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant Shall propaxe and submit to the
Fire Depaximent for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate
lane painting and or signs.
15.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a conWasting background.
16. All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing materials as described in
The Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall be a Class "B" rating
and shall be approved by the fLre department prior to installation.
17.' Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set
forth by the Fire Department.
18. Final conditions wffi be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
19. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department
Planning and engineering section 009)694-6439.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Fire Safety Specialist
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
10/30/95 kJb I 9
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Initial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Name of Project:
2. Case Number:
3. Location of Project:
4. Description of Project:
5. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
6. Name of Proponent:
7. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
ABC Pre-School
Planning Application No. PA95-0097 (Public Use Permit)
Solana Way, approximately 1,300 feet east of the intersection of
Margarita Road and Solaria Way
An approximately 19,200 square foot preschool facility and a
reduction in the required amount of parking from 102 parking spaces
to 92 parking spaces
October 12, 1995
Malinda Smith c/o ABC Pre-School
27363 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 699-5251
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section Ill)
I. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geelogic 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?
f. Changes in siltatinn, deposition or erosion?
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
__ __ X
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 ram 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 aiteration 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._pq
X
X
X
X
X
R:\~TAFI~lr/~97PAgJ.PC 10/~0/9J lib 21
Yes Maybe N__o
by
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of plants?
/ntroduction 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:
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)?
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
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?
b. The depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource?
X
R:X~TAFFRjvrXg'/PAgS.I~C 10/30/9~ k~ 22
Yes Maybe N__o
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, pestleides, 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 r~sult 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? 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, bicycl ists 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?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
X
X
X
X
X
R:~TAI~I~.I~I~9'/PAg$.~ 10F~0/95 ~b 23
Yes
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? __ _
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy? __ __
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new system, 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? __ __
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? _ _
Maybe
N._Qo
__x
x__
X
X
R:~$TAFFRIa'B97PAg~,~DC 10/30/95 kld 2A
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 object7
c. Any potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values7
d. Restrictions to existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area7
Yes Maybe N_9_o
X
X
HI. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Ea~h
Maybe. The proposal may result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures.
The site has been previously graded. Potential unstable earth conditions will he mitigated through
the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. The landscaping will serve as erosion
control. Construction and grading 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 disruptions, displacements, compactions, and/or overcovering of
the soil. All grading activity requires some form of disruption, displacement, compaction and/or
overcovering of the soil. Impacts are not considered significant for two primary reasons First, the
site has previously been graded. Second, the mount of disruption, displacement, compaction and
overcovering of the soil for the realization of this project will be minimal. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
l.c.
Yes. The project will result in a change in the site topography and ground surface relief features.
Although the site has already been modified into its current configuration, additional grading will
be necessary for the realization of this project. Since the amount of grading will be the minimum
necessary for the realization of the project, modification to topography and ground surface relief
features will not be considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
1.d.
No. The project will not result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic
or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1 .e,f.
Maybe. The project may result in increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-alte
during the construction phase of the project. This project may result in changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for
the project. In the long-run, harriscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control
for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
l.g.
No. The project will not result in modifications to any wash, channel, creek, river or lake. None
exist on the project site, nor are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
1.h.
Yes. Any 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. Soil reports will be required as conditions of appruval and will contain recommendations
for the compaction of the soil. Information contained in the City of Temecula General Plan
Environmental Impact Report {certified November 9, 1993) states that the project will not expose
people or property to geologic hazards such as landslides or mudslides. No known landslides are
located on the site or proximate to the site. The same is true for mudslides. There is no potential
for ground failure and liquefaction in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
1.i.
2.a,b.
2.c.
Water
3~a~
3.b.
3.c.
3.d.
3.e.
No. The project area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as identified by the State
of California, Resource Agency Deparmlent of Conservation Special Studies Zone Map. Therefore,
no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The project will result in a potential for air emissions both in the short and long-rnn. Air
emissions will occur during the construction phase of the project and objectionable odors may also
result. Impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. Air emissions will also
increase due to the project over the long run; however, these are not considered significant.
Because this project will be located in a residential area, the lenbrth of vehicle trips could be
reduced by the users of the facility. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
No. The project will not contribute to 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. The project will not result in changes to currents, to the course or direction of water
movements in either marine or flesh waters. The project site is not located adjacent to either
marine or flesh water sources. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and
amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable Found 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 for the project to safely and adequately handle the runoff which will be created. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not result in the alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. The project
site is not located within identified floodway or dam inundation areas. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody. No
major waterbodies are located in the subject project area. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Maybe. The project may result in discharges into surface waters and 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.
R:L~TAFFRF~97PAg$.PC 10/30/95
3.f,g.
No. The project 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, no changes will occur 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.
3.h.
No. The project will not result in the reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for
public water supplies. Water service currently exists in proximity to the project site. Additional
water service will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is
typically provided upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property
owner. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.i.
No. The project will not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
Reference response 3 .c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Plant Life
4.a-d.
No. The project will not result in a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any native
species of plants, in the reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered
species of plants, in the introduction of new species of plants into the area of native vegetation, in
a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species, or in the reduction in the acreage of any
agricultural crop. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no native
species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, or native vegetation
on the site. In addition, this property is not currently used as farm land and is not identified in the
General Plan as an area of agricultural significance. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts
as a result of this project.
Animal Life
No. The project will not result in a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species
of animals, in the reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species
of animals, in the introduction of new wildlife species inW the area, in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals or in the deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat. The proposed
project is in an area that has been experiencing urbanization for a number of years. The site is
currently graded and there is no indication that any wildlife species exists at this location. The
project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or
deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts
to the species. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to animal life as a result of this
project.
R:~STAFFRP'~e//PA95.K 10f30/95 ~ 2g
Noise
6.a.
Yes. The project will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and
any development of the land will result in increases m noise levels during construction phases as
well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. It is not anticipated that noise generated
a pre-school at the site will generate significant mounts of noise; however, the noise may bother
the existing residents to the east because they are used to the existing quiet condition. No
significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long run.
6.b,c.
Maybe. The project may expose people to severe noise levels and vibrations during the
construction phase (short run) for each development on the site. 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 exposure to severe vibrations will
be of short duration and will also not be considered significant.
Li~,ht and Glare
Yes. The project will ultimately produce and result in light/glare. All development of this nature
result in new light sources. The project has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar
Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance
Regulating Light Pollution). Proposed light standards for the project will be approximately fifty
(50) feet from the property line and will not affect adjacent residences. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Land Use
Yes. The project will alter the present land use of the area, because the site is currently vacant.
It is likely that the project will be a permitted use within the General Plan Land Use designation
of Medium Density Residential (M). In addition, the project is permitted under the existing R-2
(Multiple Family Dwellings) zoning provided a public use permit is 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 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 project will result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and 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:XSTAFFRF~97PA95.PC 10/30/95 klb 29
Risk of UDset
10.a,b.
No. The current proposal will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous
substances in the event of an accident nor in the use, storage, transport or disposal of any
hazardous or toxic materials. The pre-school will not be involved in handling any of these
materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
10.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 site will take access from a publically maintained street 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. Some new jobs will be created, and there is the potential for people
to relocate closer to their job. However, due to the limited scale of the project, large numbers of
people will not be reineating to the City of Temecula. No significant irapacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
Housin~
t2.
No. Reference response 11. Projects of this nature do not cause large numbers of people to
relocate; therefore, additional housing needs will not be created. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a.
Yes. The project will result in the generation of substantial additional vehicular movement.
According to page 3 of the Traffic Analysis prepared for the project, the project will have impacts
greater than five percent to intersections affected by the project (Ynea Road and Solana Way and
Margarita Road and Solana Way). Mitigation measures will be included in the conditions of
approval for the project, as approved by the Public Works Department, that will mitigate any
impacts from the project to a level less than significant. Therefore, no significant impacts are
expected from development of the site.
13.b.
Yes. The project will result in an increased demand for new parking. Ninety-two (92) parking
spaces are proposed for the pt~-school. The applicant has requested a reduction in the number of
parking spaces required under Ordinance No. 348 from one hundred two (102) to ninety-two (92).
This request can be supported because many of the preschool students ere dropped off at the
facility. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.c.
Yes. The project will create an impact upon existing transportation systems. Currently, Solana
Way is not fully improved in front of the project site. The project will be conditioned to provide
ultimate right-of-way improvements to Solana Way in front of the project site. This will mitigate
any potential impacts to an existing transportation system (Solana Way). The project will not
create an impact upon public transportation. Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Route 23 travels past
R:X~AFFRF~9'/PA95,PC 10/30/95 klb 30
the intersection of Margarita Road and Solana Way. This project is located approximately one-
quarter mile from this intersection. A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) will not be
required for this project. TDM is based upon the number of employees per shift and is not
required if there under 100 at one shift. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
13.d.
Yes. The project will result in alterations to present panems of circulation or movement of people
and/or goods. The site is currently vacant. People will be travelling to a site that was previously
vacant. This will logically alter the present circulation pattern. As mentioned in response No.
13.c., the project is located adjacent to a fully improved Arterial Highway. No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.e.
No. The project 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 project 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.
These impacts 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
]:4.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 project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection;
however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.c.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
school facilities. The project is a school facility. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
14.d.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
parks or other recreational facilities. Reference responses No. 11 and 12. 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.
Portions of 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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.
R:~TAFFRF~97PA95.!~C 10t'~0~95 klb 31
Erieray
15.a.
15.b.
Utilities
16.a
16.b.
t6.c.
16.d.
16.e.
16.f.
16.g.
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, f~els 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.
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. These systems are currently being delivered adjacent to the site. 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
communication systems (reference response No. 16.a.). 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 water
systems. Reference response 3.h. 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 sanitary
sewer systems. The project is located within Eastern Municipal Water Distriet's CEMW'D) 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.
Yes. The proposal will result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to on-site storm
water drainage systems. Although the project is considered in-fill, the proposal will need to
provide on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval
for the project. 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 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 Program~ which are
implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The proposal will not result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of utility delivery system
improvements for any of the above. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:~qTAFFRPTX97PA95.1~C 10/30/95 klb 32
Human Health
17.a.b.
No. The proposal will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard.
The County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the project and its
recommendations shall be included as conditions of approval for the project (as per County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated October 2, 1995, 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.
Aesthetics
18.a,b.
No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,
nor in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The project will be
compatible in architectural style and scale with adjacent development and is typical of development
in Temecula and Southern California. Landscaping and building articulation will provide buffers
to existing view corridors. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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 site. 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.
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 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-alte 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:XSTAFFRPTX97PA95.!mC 10/30/95 klb 33
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 prehistory7
Does the project have the potential to achieve short
term, to the disadvantage of long term, enviromental
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?
Yes Maybe N__o
X
R:~TAFFRI~97PA95.!*C 10/t0/95 klb 34
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.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
X
Preparedby:
R:~TAFFRP~9'/PAgI.PC 10/30/95 lab 35
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
10/30/95 klb 36
,<
.<
< < < < ~ ,<
~: ~ ~ ~ z z
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:~TAFFRF~97PAg$.l'C 10t30/95 lab 47
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0097 (PUBLIC USE PERMIT)
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 6, 1995
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
,
EX!HIIIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - R-2 MUL'rlI-LE FAMILY DWRIJ3NGS
./
/SiT
EX~suIIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - M (Me:I~IUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
CASE NO. - PAgt~-IM)97 (PUBLIC USE PERMATI
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMIiER 6, 1995
.k
CITY OF TEMECULA
\ \
CASE NO. - PA95-0097 (PUBLIC USE PERMIT)
EXIHRIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 6, 1995
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0097 (PUBLIC USE PERMIT)
EXfHRIT - E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 6, 1995
ELEVATION~
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0097 (PUBLIC USE PERMIT)
YmRIT - F
t'LANNING COMI~,QSION DATE - NOVEMBER 6, 1995
LANDSCAPE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA.95-0097 (PUBLIC USE PERMIT)
ExtilRrr - G
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 6, 1995
FLOOR PLAN
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
PARKING REDUCTION REQUEST FROM APPLICANT
R:~TAFFRP~97PAg~.I~C 1111~95/r~ '4'3
PRESCHOOL and KINDERGARTEN
September 1, 1995
Mr. Mathew Fagan
City of Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Re:
Parcels 1 & 2, PM 13271
ABC Pre-School
Temecula, California
Dear Mr. Fagan:
This letter is to formally request a reduction in the parking requirements concerning the above
referenced project. Per the City of Temecula Planning Department (COTPD) parking
regulations, 102 parking stalls are required. We have provided 92 parking stalls ( 70 regular,
4 handicap, and 18 compact). It is our professional opinion that the provided parking is
adequate for this proposed hand use. This facility is a "drop-off and pick-up" pre-school, and
clients of this pre-school will not park and stay for long durations of time. Adequate and
efficient parking has been provided for the forty (40) anticipated employees. Please do not
hesitate to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Malinda Smith
Owner
C:
Mr. Randolph F. Fleming, R.C.E.
Engineering Ventures, Inc.
27363 Jefferson Ave. · Temecula, CA 92590 · (714) 699-5251
ITEM #5
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 6, 1995
Planning Application No. PA95-0088 (Plot Plan)
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA95-0088; and
2. ADOPT Resolution No. 95- approving Planning
Application No. PA95-0088 based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report; and
3. APPROVE The Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA95-0088; and
4. APPROVE Planning Application No. PA95-0088, subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING LAND USE:
Opti-Form
Gary Seward, Lusardi Construction Company
The construction of an approximately 24,450 square foot office
industrial building on an undeveloped 2.28 acre parcel.
Southwesterly corner of Winchester Road and Calle Empleado
M-SC (Manufacturing Service Commercial
North: M-SC (Manufacturing Service Commercial)
South: M-SC (Manufacturing Service Commercial)
East: M-SC (Manufacturing Service Commercial)
West: M-SC (Manufacturing Service Commercial)
BP (Business Park)
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Vacant
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Gross Area:
Total Site Area:
Building Area:
Landscape Area:
Parking and Pavement Area:
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Standard:
Compact:
Handicap:
99,468 square feet (2.28 Acres)
24,450 square feet (25%)
41,618 square feet (42%)
33,400 square feet (33%)
57 spaces
58 spaces
40 spaces
14 spaces
4 spaces
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA95-0088 was formally submitted to the Planning Department on
September 7, 1995. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on
September 28, 1995. Planning Application No, PA95-O088was deemed complete on October
17, 1995. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment
between October 17, 1995 end November 5, 1995.
ANALYSIS
Site Desian\LandscaDinQ
The project site is located on the southwesterly corner of Winchester Road and Calle
Empleado, within the Westside Business Park. While the site has been previously graded, the
proposal will require the construction of a retaining wall for an existing slope to provide a
larger building pad. The site will take access from two existing improved roads, Calle
Empleado and Winchester Road. The project consists of the construction of a 24,250square
foot office industrial building on a 2.28 acre site. The project will also include the addition of
sidewalks, new landscaping and the restoration of existing landscaping.
The site currently contains perimeter landscaping which has not been properly maintained by
the previous owner. In addition to providing new landscaping for the project, the applicant
will be required to install sidewalks and enhance and restore the existing landscaping. The
landscape plan has been reviewed by the City's Landscape Architect who has concluded that
the project is consistent with the requirements of Ordinance No. 348.
Parkinq
The construction of the building will generated a need for 57 parking spaces per Ordinance
No, 348. The project will supply 40 standard, 14 compact, and 4 handicapped spaces for a
total of 58 spaces.
Architecture
The building will be constructed of tilt-up concrete and will be painted beige on the lower and
white on the upper portions of walls. The front and sides of the building will utilize grey
windows on the bottom and blue windows on the top portion of the elevations to break-up
large expanses of wall mass. Additional building articulation will be provided through the use
of 2~ inch and 3/4 inch horizontal reveals.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
The existing zoning for the site is Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) and the General
Plan Land Use Designation is Business Park (BP). The project is located in a partially
developed business park. The proposed office industrial use is a permitted use in the M-SC
zone and is consistent with the BP Land Use Designation.
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
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, Conditions of Approval,
and the Mitigation Monitoring Program added to the project. These will mitigate any
potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance; therefore Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt the proposed Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the project.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is a proposal to construct office industrial building in an existing business park.
The landscape plan was reviewed by the City's Landscape architect and it was determined
that the project is consistent with City Landscape Ordinances. In addition, the project is
consistent with the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348. Staff is recommending that
the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the project.
FINDINGS
The proposed use conforms to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable
requirements of State law and City ordinances. The land use designation for the site
is identified in the General Plan as Business Park and the zoning designation is
Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC). The proposed use complies with California
Governmental Code Section 65360, Section 18.30 (Plot Plan) of Ordinance No. 348.
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. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment.
Mitigation measures identified in the Initial Environmental Assessment for the project
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 (Plot Plan), 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 publicly maintained
road (Winchester Road and Calle Empleado).
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.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 5
Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Initial Study - Blue Page 18
Mitigation Monitoring Plan 19
Exhibits - Blue Page 20
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
ATrACtI1VIEI',,rf NO. 1
PC RESOLIFIION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF Tlil~IEC~ APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA9~-0088 TO CONSTRUCT AN
APPROXIMATF-LY 24,4~0 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE
INDUSTRIAL BUH.r}ING ON A PARCEL CONTAINING
2.28 ACRES AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.
909-320-001,002
WI~.REAS, Opti-Form fried Planning Application No. PA95-0088 in accordance with
the City of Tomecub General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WIIRREAS, Planning Application No. PA95-0088 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local hw;
WttB~AS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA95-0088
on November 6, 1995, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at winch time
interested persons had an opporminty to testify either in support or in opposition;
WtrF. REAS, 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
rehting to Planning Application No. PA95-0088;
NOW, TITF. REFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Seaion 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findin2s. The Planning Commission, in approving planning Application No.
95-0088 makes the foliowing findings:
A. The Planning Commission, in appwving proposed Planning Application No. 95-
0088, makes the following specific findings, to wit:
(1) The proposed use conforms to all the General Plan requirements and with
all applicable requirements of state hw and City ordinances. Thc land use dcsignation for the
site is identified in the General Plan as Busincss Park and the ZOning designation is
Manufacturing Sendco Commercial (M-SC). The proposed use complies with California
Governmental Code Section 65360, Section 18.30 (Plot Plan) of Ordinance No. 348.
(2) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and general weftare; conforms to the logical development of the land and
is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The
proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation measures
identified in the Initial Environmental Assessment for the project have been included in the
Conditions of Approval that will reduce any impacts to a level less than significant.
(3) 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 (Plot Plan), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within
the City's General Plan and Ordinance No. 348.
(4) 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 publicly maintained roads
(Winchester Road and Calle Etnpleado).
(5) 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.
(6) Said fmdings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA95-0088 as
proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the
present and future development of the surrounding property.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared for the project
and it 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 and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan have been added
to the project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. PA95-0088 to construct an approximately 24,450 square foot
office industrial building located on the southwesterly comer of Winchester Road and Calle
Empleado and known as Assessor Paxeel Number 909-320-001, 002 subject to the foliowing
conditions:
A. F_,xhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made
a part hereof.
R:'~rAFFIFI~lSPA95.1~C 11/2/95 klb 7
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of November, 1995.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I l:rl~.RERy CER'rtI~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 6th day of
November, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBI~ UBNOSKE
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA95-0088- Plot Plan
Project Description: To construct an approximately 24,450 square foot office industrial
building located on the southwesterly corner of Winchester Road and Calle Empleado
Assessor's Parcel No.: 909-320-001,002
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its 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 Plot Plan
which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public
Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo., 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
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.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit A approved
with Planning Application No. PA95-0088, or as amended by these conditions.
A. A minimum of 57 parking spaces shall be provided.
R:'~TAx~I~,is'I~SSPA95.1sC 11/2/95 Idb I 0
B. A minimum of 2 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided,
C. A minimum of 2 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided.
Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit C, or as amended by these
conditions.
Color and materials shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, or as amended by these
conditions.
Materials Colors
Walls
Glass
Sundew Beige & White Shadow
High Performance Blue/Green & Grey Light 14
An Administrative Plot Plan application for signage shall be required if signage is
proposed.
Landscape plans shall conform substantially with Exhibit B, or as amended by these
conditions.
9. The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
10.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance NO. 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded
by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
11.
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
12.
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.
13.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans 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. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The
cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site.
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.
]~:\317~PA95.l~C 11/2/95 kJb 11
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
15. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
16.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
17.
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.
18.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to
guarantee the removal of the maintenance and operations trailers, the temporary
parking, and the temporary landscaping,
19.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
20.
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.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
21.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
22.
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 (1994 editions due for adoption by December 1995).
23. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
24. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
25. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disable Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
A. Van accessible parking shall be provide with an eight (8) foot loading area on
the passenger side.
B. An accessible path of travel shall be provided from the public right-of-way
sidewalk to the main entrance.
26. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
27. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
28. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
29. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
30. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project. All conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government
Agency. 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
31. 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.
32.
33.
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.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
34. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
35.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed
and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
36.
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.
37.
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
38.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
39.
A Geological Report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The
report shall address special study zones and the geological conditions of the site, and
shall provide recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and
liquefaction.
40.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also
analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific
recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading
or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access
easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the
Developer.
41. 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.
42. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
43. 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.
44. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review.
45. 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.
46. An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
47. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
48. Improve Winchester Road and Calle Empleado to City street standards to include but
not be limited to; installation of commercial driveway approaches, contiguous
sidewalks, handicap access ramp and parkway trees.
49. 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:
a. Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
c. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
d. Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the I~roject boundaries or as
otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
R:~STAI~I~RP~88PAg~.PC ll/2jgS ~b I 5
f. 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.
50.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as
established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
51.
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 ~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; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
52.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western
Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
53.
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
54.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
55.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans
and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
P,:~STAPPRIvI'~$SPA95.PC 11/2/95 klb 16
56.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of
Public Works.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
57.
OTHER AGENCIES
58.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated October 23, 1995,
a copy of which is attached.
59.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Temecula Valley
Unified School District transmittal dated September 21, 1995, a copy of which is
attached.
60.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated September 26, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
61.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health transmittals dated September 20, 1995
and September 26, 1995, copies of which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:~STAFFP, PT~ggPA95.PC 11/2/95 Idb 17
City of Temecula
43174 Bus~ness Park Dnve· Temecula, California 92590 (909) 694~444 · Fax (909) 694-1999
October 23, 1995
TO:
PLANNING DEPAETMI~NT
A'ITN: CRAIG RUIZ
RE: PA95-0088
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire
Dep~utment recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognizext fire protection standards:
The fire Depaament 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 2500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination of on-site and off-site super Fare hydrants, on a looped system (6"x4"x2-2
1/2"), wffi be located not less thnn 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the
building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire 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 Depaament for
review. Plans shah be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire
Depamnent approval 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 Depax'tment 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.
5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
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 CONDKflONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
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 beilding(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically fLre sprinkled must be included on the ti~e page of the building
plans.
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring f'Lre alarm system. Plans shall be submitted
to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
Install portable f'ffe extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
It is prohibited to usedprocess or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify
it as an "I-I" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mount~l in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street directly in line with
fire 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 fire lanes with appropriate
lane painting and or signs.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on'the
~hr.t,t side of the building with a contrasting background.
All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing materials as described in
The Uniform Building Code. Any wood shingles or shakes shall be a Chss "B" rating
and shall be approved by the rue depaxtment prior to inStallatiOn.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show them exists conditions set
forth by the Fire DeparUnent.
Final conditions wffi be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
18. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Dcpathlaent
Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laun Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
RECEIVED
OCT 0 2 1995
DATE: September 20, 1995
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Craig Ruiz
FROM G OR DELLENBACH, Environmental Health Specialist IV
RE: PLOT PLAN NO. PA95-0088
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Plot Plan No. PA95-0088
and have no objections.
2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, the following items will be required:
a) Three copies of a detailed, scaled (1"=40' maximum) plot plan showing all fixtures
serving the proposed subsurface sewage disposal system. The complete subsurface
sewage disposal system, plus 100% expansion will also be plotted.
b) A "will-serve" letter from the agency/agencies serving potable water and sanitary
sewers.
GD:dr
(9o9) 275-8980
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: September 26, 1995
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Craig Ruiz
PA95-0088
1. The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the PA95-0088 and has no
objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may be available in this area.
2. PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAl.,, for health clearance, the following
items are required:
a) "Will-serve" letters fi'om the appropriate water and sewer agencies.
b) A clearance letter from the HaTardous Services Materials Management Branch
(909) 358-5055 will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for:
i) Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.4.
ii) Hazardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
iii) Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #
651.2.).
iv) Waste reduction management.
3. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA).
GD:gd
(909) 275-8980
NOTE:
Any current additional requirements not covered, can be applicable at time of
Building Plan review for final Department of Environmental Health clearance.
Eastern Municipal ater District
September 26, 1995
RECEIVED
SEP 2 7
Craig Ruiz, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Depau txnent
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
SUBJECT: Opti-Forms, INC. - Agency Case Tr~nsmittal
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
From the materials transmitted by your office it is our understating the proposal is for a
office, manufacturing and general warehouse located at the southwestern corner of the
intersection of Winchester Road and Calle Empleado.
The subject project is located within Rancho California Waster District's sanitary fewer
service area. However, Eastern Municipal Water Diswict provides sewer interceptor and
treatment for this area. Please contact the District's Customer Service Depatu~ent at (909)
766-1822 to arrange for payment of Sewer Back up, Reclaimed Water and Sewer
Treatment Capacity Fees for sm~itary sewer service. Please note daat this area will be
subject to a special rate charge based on a Stand-by and Advalorem Tax.
Water service will be provided by Rancho California Water District.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact this
office at (909) 925-7676, extension 4467.
Sincerely,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Warren A. Back, P.E.
Associate Engineer II
Customer Service Depari~nent
Mail to:X~rPo~ABtZmce Box 8300 San ]=cinto, California 92581-8300 Talcphone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Of'flee: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue. Hernet. CA
Operations 8~ Maintenance Center: 2270 Trurnble Road, Perris. CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177
~~.~~TEME'~~CULA VALLEY '"
Unified School District RECEIVED
September 21, 1995
BOARD OF EDUCATION
l~aroara Tooker
Ros~6 VanOerl~aak
Craig Ruiz
City of Temecula Planning Depar[ment
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: PA95-0088, Opti-form
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
The Temecula Valley Unified School District would like to have payment of statuatory commercial
development fees listed as a condition of approval.
If you have any questions, please call me at 695-7340.
Sincerely,
Teme~e~~ol District
~i~.ia'~7, Feci,itiee De,,e,op,:,,ent
cc: Facilities Comments SA 102
31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula, CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL STUDY
l~:~TAF]rP, P~gSPA95,PC 11/2/95
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Initial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND INFORMA~ON
1. Name of Project:
2. Case Numbers:
3. Location of Project:
4. Description of Project:
5. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
6. Name of Proponent:
7. Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
Opti-Form Building
PA95-0088 (Plot Plan)
Southwesterly comer of Winchester Road and Calle Empleado
Construction of an approximately 24,450 square foot office industrial
building on an undeveloped 2.28 acre parcel:
October 9, 1995
Clint Tinker, Opti-Fonn
27620 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, CA 92590-4813
(909) 676-1178
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section HI)
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 soft?
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?
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion?
g. The modification of any wash, channel, creek, river or lake?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
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 Found 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. Plnnt 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._qo
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Yes Maybe N__o
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, benthic organisms, and/or insects)? __ __ X
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 ~nimals? __ __
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ _ __X
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 penpie to severe vibrations? __ X
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? X
b. Alteration to the future planned land use of an area as described
in a community or general plan? _ _ X
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 __
Yes Maybe N._.q
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 wxic
materials (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals,
or radiation)? __X __
c, Possible inte~erence 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?
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?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
X
X
X
X
X
X
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? __
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy? __
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 tahiti? __
e. Storm water drainage systems? X
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? __
b. The exposure of people to potential health hazards, including
the exposure of sensitive receptors (such as hospitals and
schools) to toxic poliutant emissions? __
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obsu'uction 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
N__o
X
X
X
X
Yes Maybe N__o
20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
The alteration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehisWric,
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:~PLANN~GX88PA9S.IES 10117/95 k~ 6
HI. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
1.a.
Maybe. The proposal may result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures.
The site has been previously graded. Potential unstable earth conditions will be mitigated through
the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the sobs. The landscaping will serve as erosion
control. Construction and grading for the 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 disruptions, displacements, compactions, and/or overcovering of
the soil. All grading activity requires some form of disruption, displacement, compaction and/or
overcovering of the soil. Impacts are not considered significant for two primary reasons First, the
site has previonsly beon graded. Second, the amount of disruption, displacement, compaction and
overcovering of the soil for the realization of this project and future projects will be minimal. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The project will result in a change in the site topography and ground surface relief features.
Although the site has already been modified into its current configuration, additional grading will
be necessary for the realization of the project. Since the amount of grading will be the minimum
necessary for the realization of the project, modification to topography and ground surface relief
features will not be considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
1.d.
No. The project will not result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic
or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1 .e,f.
Maybe. The project may result in increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site
during the construction phase of the project. This project may result in changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for
the projea. In the long-run, bardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control
for the projea. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.g.
No. The project will not result in modifications to any wash, channel, creek, river or lake. None
exist on the project site, nor are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
1.h.
Yes. Any 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. Soil reports prepared for the site contain recornmeodations for the compaction of the
soil and will be included as conditions of approval for the project. ]nformatinn contained in the
City of Temecula General Plan Environmental Impact Report (certified November 9, 1993) states
that the project will not expose people or property to geologic hazards such as landslides or
mudslides. No known landslides are located on the site or proximate to the site. The same is true
for mudslides. There is no potential for ground failure and liquefaction in this area. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.i.
Air
2.a,b.
Water
3.a.
3.b.
3.c.
3.d.
3.e.
No. The project area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as identified by the State
of California, Resource Agency Department of Conservation Special Studies Zone Map. The
project is located approximately 400 feet to the west of an identified fault zone as identified in a
soils report prepared for an adjacent parcel map (PM 24085). Therefore, no significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The project will result in a potential for air emissions both in the short and long-run. Air
emissions will occur during the construction phase of the project and objectionable odor may also
result. Impacts will be of short duration and ere not considered significant. Air emissions will also
increase due to the project over the long run; however, these ere not considered significant. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not contribute to 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. The project will not result in changes to currents, to the course or direction of water
movements in either merine or fresh waters. The project site is not located adjacent to either
merine or fresh water sources. No significant impacts ere anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage paRems and the rate and
amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable Found will be rendered impervious by
construction of buildings, acx, ompanying herdscape and driveways. While absorption rates and
surface runoff will change, impacts ere mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyance will
be required for the project to safely and adequately handle the runoff which will be created. No
significant impacts ere anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not result in the alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. The project
site is not located within identified floodway or dam inundation areas. No significant impacts ere
anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody. No
major waterbodies are located in the subject project erea. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Maybe. The project may resuk in discharges into surface waters and 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 Boerd. No grading shall be permitted until an
NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the projea 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 ere anticipated as a result of this project.
3 .f,g.
No. The project 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, no changes will occur 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.
3.h.
No. The project will not result in the reduction in the mount of water otherwise available for
public water supplies. Water service currently exists at the project site. Additional water service
will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided
upon cempletion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. The same
would apply to future development projects at the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
3.i.
No. The project will not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
Reference response 3 .c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Plant Life
4.a-d.
No. The project will not result in a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any native
species of plants, in the reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered
species of plants, in the introduction of new species of plants into the area of native vegetation, in
a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species, or in the reduction in the acreage of any
agricnimral crop. The project site has been previously graded. Currently, there are no native
species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangarad species of plants, or native vegetation
on the site. In addition, this property is not currently used as farm land and is not identified in the
General Plan as an area of agricultural significance. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts
as a result of this project.
Animal Life
No. The project will not result in a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species
of animals, in the reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species
Of animalS, in the introduction of new wildlife species into the area, in a barrier to the migration
or movement of alnlrnals or in the deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat. The proposed
project is in an area that has been experiencing urbnniTation for a number of years. The site is
currently graded and there is no indication that any wildlife species exists at this location. The
project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or
deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen' s Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts
to the species. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to nnirnal life as a result of this
project.
Noise
6.a.
Yes. The project will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and
any development of the land will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as
well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. It is not anticipated that noise generated
by a business in a business park will generate significant mounts of noise No significant noise
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long run.
6.b,c.
Maybe. The project may expose people to severe noise levels and vibrations during the
construction phase (short run) for each development on the site. 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 exposure to severe vibrations will
be of short duration and will also not be considered significant.
Light and Glare
Yes. The project will ultimately produce and result in light/glare. All development of this nanire
result in new light sources. The project has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar
Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance
Regulating Light Pollution). Proposed light standards for the project will be approximately fifty
(50) feet from the property line and will not affect adjacent residences. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Land Use
8.a.
Yes. The project will alter the present land use of the area, because the site is currently vacant.
The current proposal is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation for the site
which identifies the site as (BP) Business Park. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
8.b.
No. The proposal will not result in an alteration to the funire 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 project will result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and 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.
k U0set
10.a,b.
Yes. The proposed use will transport, use and store hazardous materials in the course of the
business. This will result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the
event of an accident and in the use, storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic
materials. The project will be conditioned to implement the requirements of the Riverside County
Department of Environmanutl Health and the Riverside County Fire Department for the use, storage
and transportation of hazardous materials. The imposition of these conditions will lessen potential
impacts to a level below significance.
R:XPLANN~,OXSSPA9J.I~S 10/17195 k~ l0
10.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 site will take access from a publicly maintained street and will therefore not impede any
emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
Population
11.
No. The project will not result in altering the location, distribution, density or grovah rate of the
human population of the area. Some new jobs will be created, and there is the potential for people
to relocate closer to their job. However, because the project is an expansion of an existing local
business, large nun~bers of people will not be reAocating to the City of Temecula. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Housing
12.
No. Reference response 11. Projects of this nature do not cause large numbers of people to
relocate; therefore, additional housing needs will not be created. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Transportation/Circulation
13.a,c.
No. The project will not generate a significant number of vehicles trips (5 % or greater increase
in vehicle trips to the area) which would require the imposition of mitigation measures. No
significant impacts are expected from development of the site.
13.b.
Yes. The project will result in an increased demand for new parking. Fifty-Eight (58) parking
spaces are proposed for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
13.d.
Yes. The project will result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people
and/or goods. The site is currently vanant. People will be travelling to a site that was previously
vacant. This will logically alter the present circulation pattern. Because the project is located
adjacent to a fully improved City streets, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
13.e.
No. The project 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 project 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.
These impacts 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.
R:',I, LANNINOX$$PA95.1ES 10/17/95 klb ] 1
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 project will incrementally increase the need for fire and police protection;
however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.c.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
school facilities. The project is a school facility. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
14.d.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
parks or other recreational facilities. Reference responses No. 11, 12, and 14.c. 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.
Portions of 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.f.
No. The proposal w~l 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.
EriePEr
15.a.
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 dally 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.
Utilities
16.a
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to power or
natural gas. These systems are curren~y being delivered adjacent to the site. 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 District's (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.
Yes. The proposal will result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to on-site storm
water drainage systems. Although the project is considered in-fill, the proposal will need to
provide on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval
for the 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Human Health
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 its recommendations
shall be included as conditions of approval for the project (as per County of Riverside Health
Services Agency transmittal dated September 20, 1995, 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.
Aesthe~c~
18.a,b.
No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,
nor in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The project will be
compatible in architectural style and scale with adjacent development and is typical of development
in Temecula and Southern California. 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 opporUmities. Reference responses No. 11 and 12. The projea will not cause
significant numbers of people to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in
R:~LANNINOXiSPA95.1BS 10/17/95 klb 13
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 altoration or destruction of any paleontologic, prehistoric,
archaeological or historic site. 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.
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 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.
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Yes Maybe N__q
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 susl'~ining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant, bird or animal
species, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
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.)
X
Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cnmulatively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate resources may be
relatively small, but where the effect of the wtal of
those impacts on the environment is significant.)
X
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
R:~PLANNDI(~PA95.1B$ 10/17/95 klb
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 fmd 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.
I fred the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
X
Prepared by:
Craig Ruiz. Assistant Planner
Name and Title
October 9. 1995
Date
R:~P~(]X88PAg$.12S 10117/95 k~ 1~
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
,< ,< ,<
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:L~TAFFP, PT~gBPA95.PC 11/2/95
CITY OF TEMECULA
SITE
d,
CASE NO. - PA95-0088 PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 6, 1995
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0088 PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT - D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 7, 1995
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
6P
EXHIBIT B - GENERAL PLAN MAP
DESIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK}
BP
C-P-S
EXHIBIT C - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - M-SC (MANUFACTURING SERVICE COMMERCIAL)
ASE NO. - PA95-0088 PLOT PLAN
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 6, 1995
R:~TA~ggPA95.PC 11/2/95 klb
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 6, 1995
Planning Application No. PA95-O096 (Plot Plan)
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application
No. PA95-0096; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 95- approving Planning
Application No. PA95-0096 based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report; and
APPROVE The Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA95-0096; and
APPROVE The Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish
a building listed an historical structure in the Old Town
Specific Plan; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA95-0096, subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Ladd & Marge Penfold, 999 Corp.
REPRESENTATIVE:
Elliot Urich
PROPOSAL:
The demolition, with the exception of one demising wall, of a
currently abandoned commercial building. The project will
provide for the construction of an approximately 6,600 square
foot commercial retail building and the improvement of vacant
land for a corresponding parking lot.
LOCATION:
28545 Front Street
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: Specific Plan
South: Specific Plan
East: Specific Plan
West: Specific Plan
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC Community Commercial
EXISTING LAND USE:
Abandoned Commercial Building
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial Retail
Commercial Retail
Commercial Retail
Murrieta Creek
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Gross Area: 45,302 square
Total Net Area: 25,638 square
Total Site Area:
Building Area: 6,603 square
Landscape Area: 2,170 square
Parking and Pavement Area:l 6,865 square
Parking Required: 26 spaces
Parking Provided: 56 spaces
Standard: 42 spaces
Compact: 10 spaces
Handicap: 4 spaces
feet (1.04 Acres)
feet (.58 Acres)
feet (24%)
feet (8%)
feet (62%)
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA95-0096 was formally submitted to the Planning Department on
September 20, 1995. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on October
5, 1995. Planning Application No. PA95-0096 was deemed complete on October 17, 1995.
The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment between
October 17, 1995 and November 5, 1995.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is located within the boundaries of the Old Town Specific Plan. The proposal includes
the demolition, with the exception of the northerly demising wall, of a currently abandoned
commercial building. The project will provide for the construction of an approximately 6,600
square foot commercial retail building and the improvement of vacant land for a corresponding
parking lot.
ANALYSIS
Site Desion
The site currently contains an abandoned 4, 100 square foot building and an undeveloped area
to the rear (west) of the building. The project will require the demolition of the existing
building, with the exception of the demising wall on the north side of the building, and the
construction a 6,600 square foot building in the same location, The additional 2,500 square
feet of building area will be located to the rear (west) of the existing building, The vacant area
behind the building will contain a 56 space parking lot. Along the south property is an existing
alley that will be improved to meet current City Standards, Along the north property line is
the unimproved right-of-way for Fifth Street. The applicant has requested, and staff supports,
the vacation of Fifth Street from Front Street to Murrieta Creek. The project will include
parking lot landscaping and planter boxes in the front of the building, The applicant will also
provide a boardwalk from the front of their building to the edge of paving on Front Street.
Architecture
The Old Town Specific Plan contains architectural style guidelines which the project must
comply with. The proposed elevations (see Exhibits C & D) are similar to the existing building.
As identified in the Specific Plan, the style of architecture is Old Town Western. The common
design elements of this style include a false front western parapet, board and batten wood
siding, 6x6 wood braced columns, and shed roofs (see Attachment F). As required by the
Specific Plan, the elevations were reviewed by the Old Town Local Review Board at their
October meeting. During their review, the Board made some minor recommendations to the
design which have since been incorporated by the applicant. It was the Board's unanimous
opinion that the design of the building, with the modifications, is consistent with the Old Town
Western Style Architectural Guidelines.
Historical Desionation
The proposed project calls for the demolition of a building that is designated as a historical
structure in the Old Town Specific Plan. The Specific Plan estimates that the original building
was constructed in 1910. The original building was constructed of unreinforced masonry
walls. Over the years, the building has been modified several times. Also, the building been
partially destroyed in recent years due to fire, flood, and vandalism. Thus, the current
structure contains little of the original building.
Within the Specific Plan is the Old Town Historic Preservation Incentives Ordinance. The
Ordinance contains several incentives to discourage the demolition of listed structures. Should
a building owner choose not to take advantage of the incentives, the owner may demolish the
historic structure. However, the owner must first receive a Certificate of Appropriateness
from the Community Development Director. Because project approval has been deferred to
the Commission, should they choose to approved this project, the Commission will be granting
said Certificate.
When the Old Town Local Review Board reviewed this project, the historical significance of
the building was discussed. The Board concluded that little of the original building remained.
The Board also concluded that the damage caused to the building over the years, and the cost
of restoring the building to current building codes make the restoration of the building
infeasible. Thus, it was the Board's recommendation that the Certificate of Appropriateness
be granted to demolish the building. Staff concurs with the Board's recommendation.
LandscaDino
The applicant is providing landscaping in the parking lot area and landscape planters at the
front of the building. It is staff's opinion that the planting and materials are consistent with
the Landscape Guidelines of the Old Town Specific Plan.
Parkinq
The construction of the building will generated a need for 26 parking spaces per Ordinance
No. 348. The project will supply 42 standard, 10 compact, and 4 handicapped spaces for a
total of 56 spaces.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Existing zoning for the site is Specific Plan and the land use designation within the Specific
Plan is Tourist Retail Core (TRC). The proposal for retail commercial is consistent with Specific
Plan which provides for retail sales in the TRC zone. The proposed retail sales is also
consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Community Commercial.
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
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, Conditions of Approval,
and the Mitigation Monitoring Program added to the project. These will mitigate any
potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance; therefore Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission adopt the proposed Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the project.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is a proposal to construct a retail commercial building in Old Town. The landscape
plan was reviewed by the City's Landscape architect and it was determined that the project
is consistent with City Landscape Ordinances. In addition, the project is consistent with the
City's General Plan and Old Town Specific Plan. Staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve the Mitigation Monitoring
Program, and approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project.
FINDINGS
The proposed use conforms to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable
requirements of State law and City ordinances. The land use designation for the site
is identified in the General Plan as Community Commercial. The Old Town Specific
Plan designation for the site is Tourist Retail Core. The proposed use complies with
California Governmental Code Section 65360, Section 18.30 (Plot Plan) of Ordinance
No. 348.
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. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment.
Mitigation measures identified in the Initial Environmental Assessment for the project
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 (Plot Plan), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained
within the City's General Plan, Old Town Specific 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 (Front Street).
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.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Exhibit A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 19
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 20
Exhibits - Blue Page 21
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Vicinity Map
Old Town Specific Plan Land Use Map
General Plan Map
Site Plan
Building Elevation
Architectural Guidelines
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
ATTACHlvfgN'T NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
T~I~. CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA9~-0096 TO DEMOLISH, WITH TFrF.
EXCEPTION OF ONE DEMISING WALL, A CURRENTLY
ABANDONED BU~I, ING AND ~ CONSTRUCTION OF
A CO1VIM~.RCIAL BLr~.I~ING OF APPROXIMATELY 6,602
SQUARE FEET ON A pARC!~.L CONTAINING 1.04 ACRES
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-035-001
WttEREAS, Ladd and Marge Penfold filed Planning Application No. PA95-0096 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County l~nd Use and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WltF. REAS, Planning Application No. PA95-0096 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WRF. REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA95-0096
on November 6, 1995, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by hw, at which time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WII~.REAS, 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. PA95-0096;
NOW, TItFJil?J?ORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOI.IIZ)WS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA95-0096 makes the following findings:
A. The Planning Commission, in approving proposed Planning Application No.
PA95-0096, makes the following specific fmdings, to wit:
(1) The proposed use conforms to all the General plan requirements and with
all applicable requirements of state hw and City ordinances. The land use designation for the
site is identified in the General Plan as Community Commercial. The Old Town Specific Plan
designation for the site is Tourist Retail Core. The proposed use complies with California
Governmental Code Section 65360, Section 18.30 (Plot Plan) of Ordinance No. 348.
(2) 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. The
proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. Mitigation measures
identified in the Initial Environmental Assessment for the project have been included in the
Conditions of Approval that will reduce any impacts to a level less than significant.
(3) 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 (Plot Plan), as conditioned, complies with the standards contained within
the City's General Plan, Old Town Specific Plan and Ordinance No. 348.
(4) 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 (Front Street).
(5) The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they
axe not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project.
(6) Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference.
B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA.95-0096 as
proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the
present and future development of the surrounding property.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study was prepared for the project
and it indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the
environment, there wffi not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described in the Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan have been added
to the project.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecuh pJanning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. PA95-0096 to demolish an existing building, with the
exception of one demising wall and construct a 6,603 square foot commercial retail building,
located at 28545 Front Street, and known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 921-035-001 subject to the
following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made
a part hereof.
R:X$TAFFRP~96PA95.l~ 11/2/95 Ir~ 8
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of November, 1995.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I B~,RERy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a reguhtr meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of
November, 1995 by the foBowing vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBIE UBNOSKE
SECREICARY
R:X~TAFFRPT~96PA95.PC 11r2/95 klb 9
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~STAFI;RFI~961>A95.1'C 11/2/95 klb 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA95-0096 - Plot Plan
Project Description: The demolition, with the exception of one demising wall, of a
currently abandoned commercial building. The project will provide for the construction
of an approximately 6,600 square foot commercial retail building and the improvement
of vacant land for a corresponding parking lot.
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-035-001
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City
and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and
agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency
or instrumentality thereof, or any of its 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 Plot Plan
which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public
Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo., 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
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. PA95-0096, or as amended by these conditions.
A. A minimum of 26 parking spaces shall be provided.
B. A minimum of 2 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
C. A minimum of 2 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided.
~:\STAFFltP~96p~95,PC 11/2/95
4. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibits C and D, or as amended
by these conditions.
Color and materials shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these
conditions.
Materials Colors
Walls
Batten
Roof-Porch
Roof
Cedar Wood
2" battens, 2 feet on center
Metal
Elks Composition Shingle
m
Landscape plans shall conform substantially with Exhibit B, or as amended by these
conditions.
7. The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the
appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded
by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee
required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat
Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
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
10.
The applicant shall receive the necessary building permits to demolish the existing
structure.
11.
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.
12.
Three (3) copies of Construction Landscaping and Irrigation Plans 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. These plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Ordinance. The
cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site.
13.
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.
R::',STAPPRF~96PA95.PC 11/2/95 klb 12
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
14. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
15.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
16. The two metal sign pole standards shall be removed.
17.
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.
18.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to
guarantee the removal of the maintenance and operations trailers, the temporary
parking, and the temporary landscaping.
19. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
20.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
21.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
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.
R:~STAt~RPT~PA~I.!~ ll~,~J5 k~ 13
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project, All conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government
Agency. 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
23.
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.
24.
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.
25.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site.
26. All plans shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
27.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed
and approved by the Department of Public Works. The grading plan shall include all
necessary erosion control measures needed to adequately protect adjacent public and
private property.
28.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to b~ exempt.
29.
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
30.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils or Civil Engineer and submitted
to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and pavement sections.
The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in
accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site
and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or
private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also
analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific
recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading
or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access
easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the
Developer.
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 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.
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.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review.
A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is
required for work within their right-of-way.
An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
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:~STAFFRP~96pA95,PC 11/2/~ Idb 15
The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway
shall he shown on the precise grading plan.
39.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone AE 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 "AE". Property owner
will be required to pay flood insurance or obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
40.
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.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
41.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for
location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
42.
Improve Front Street and alley to City and Old Town Specific Plan standards to
included but not be limited to; paving, curb and gutter, boardwalk, installation of
commercial driveway approach, and concrete rolled curb.
43.
Owner shall request the vacation of Fifth Street from Front Street to River Street or
improve Fifth Street to City and Old Town Specific Plan standards. If the property
owner choose to vacate Fifth Street, easements for public utilities and public access
shall be provided.
44.
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.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
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.
R:'xSTAl~rRFI~96PA95.PC llf~)S lr, lb 16
45.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through undersidewalk drains,
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.
46.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as
established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
47.
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 $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.
48.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed "Western
bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan", The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney,
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
49.
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
50.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
51. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans
and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
R:~TAI:I~RF~PA93.IsC I1/2/9~ klb 17
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
52. 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 (1994 editions due for adoption by December 1995).
53. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
54. Provide occupancy approval for all existing buildings (i.e. finialed building permit,
Certificate of Occupancy).
55. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disable Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
56. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
57. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
58. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
59. Structural analysis of the building for seismic resistance is exceeded due to the fact
that bearing walls are of unreinforced masonry construction.
OTHER AGENCIES
60. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated October 23, 1995,
a copy of which is attached.
61. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District transmittal dated October 18, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
62. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated October 18, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
63. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated October 2, 1995, a
copy of which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
P,:L%'TAFFRPT~6pA95,PC 11/2/95 klb 18
(909) 694-6444 · Fax (909/ 694-1999
OCTOBER 23, 1995
TO:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CRAIG RUIZ
PA95-0096
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire
Depamnent recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire Depa,ltuent 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 1500 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
The required fire flow shall be available from a super (6"x4'x 2-2 1/2") fife hydrant,
located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the budding as
measured along vehicular travelways.
The applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the
water company noting location of the existing fire hydrant and the existing water system
is capable of delivering 1500 GPM fire flow for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual
operating pressure. ff a water system curren~y does not exist, the applicant/developer
shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been
made to provide them.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accopte~ by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the
job site.
The required water system, including fife hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the
job site.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fife protection impacts.
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.
TIDE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
m
Install a complete fife sprinkler system in all buildings. The pest indicator valve and fife
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 fife sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
m
Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans shall be submitted
to the Fire Department for approval prior to inStallatiOn.
10. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort.
11.
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
12.
It is prohibited to use/process or store any materinl~ in this occupancy that would classify
it as an "Fi" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code.
13.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middie of the street directly in line with
fife hydrant.
14.
Prior to final inspection Of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the
Fire Department for approval, a site plan designaling requLred fire lanes with appropriate
lane painling and or signs.
15.
Stre~ address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with a contrasting background.
16.
All buildings shall be constructed with fire retardant roofing materials as described in
The Uniform Building Code. ,Any wood shingles or shakes shall be a Class "B" rating
and shall be approved by the fife depaxhaaent prior to installation.
17.
Applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set
forth by the Fire Department.
18. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are review~ in the Building and
Safety Office.
19. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department
Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439.
RAYMOND H. RI~GIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laura Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
Eastern Municipal ater District
~.~
October 2,
1995
RECEIVED
OCT 0 6 1995
IBs'L, .........
Craig Ruiz, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
SUBJECT: 999 Corp. - Agency Case Transmittal
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
From the materials transmitted by your office it is our understanding the proposal is for a
rehabilitation and building addition to an existing building in Old Town Temecula along Front Street.
The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area. Please contact
EMWD's Customer Service Depamnent at (909) 766-1822 to arrange for payment of additional fees
that may be assessed the property due to possible increased sewer usages.
Water service will be provided by Kancho California Water District.
Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel flee to contact this office at
(909) 766-1810, ext. 4467.
Sincerely,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
Warren A. Back, P.E. -
Associate Engineer II
Customer Service Departmere
WAB
Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinto, California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257
Main Office: 2045 S. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue. Hemet, CA
Operations ~c Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road, Perris, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 9284777 Fax (909) 928-6177
l ancho
Wat;r
October 11, 1995
COl' 1 1998
Cl F" OF TEMECULA
Nancy lfh Hughes
Lisa D. Peterson
Csaba F. Ko
Doug Kulberg
Michael Ph McMillan
Jeffrey L. Minlaer
John F, Hennigar
Phillip L. Forbes
C, Michael Cowerr
Mr. Craig Ruiz, Assistant Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-3606
SUBJECT:
Water Availability
PA95-0096
APN 922-035-001
Dear Mr. Ruiz:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the
boundaries of Raneho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements
between RCWD and the properly 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 Janice Johnson.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Laurie Willjams
Engineering Sen, ices Manager
wp95xLW~J:mc08/F186fFEG
cc: Janice Johnson, Engineering Services Representative
,::-..,,~ County of Riverside
~'~- ,~-,~' DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
(,.,. DATE: October 2, 1995
TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: Craig Ruiz
to
FROM: ~4~d~GOR DELLENBACH, Registered Environmental Health Specialist IV
RE: SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. PA95-0096
1. Department of Environmental Health has received and reviewed the Substantial Conformance No.
PA95-0096 and have no objections.
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
A'R'ACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL STUDY
R:~TAFFRPT~96PA95.]~C 11/2/95 ~b 19
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Initial Environmental Study
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Name of Project:
Knotfs Garage
2. Case Numbers:
PA95-0096 (Plot Plan)
3. Location of Project:
28545 Front Street, Temecula
4. Description of Project:
The project consists of the demolition, with the exception of one
demising wall, of a currently abandoned building. The building is
listed on the City's List of historical buildings. The project will
provide for the construction of an approximately 6,600 square foot
commercial retail building and the improvement of vacant land for a
corresponding parking lot.
5. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
October 9, 1995
6. Name of Proponent:
Ladd & Marge Penfold, 999 Corp.
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
28991 Front Street, Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 676-2081
H. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations to all the answers are provided in Section IH)
1. Farfit. Will the proposal result in:
Yes Maybe N 9
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes geologic substructures?
_ __x
Disruptions, displacements, compaction, or over covering
of the soil?
X
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
X
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
X
f. Changes in siltation, deposition or erosion?
X
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 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 cots 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?
Yes
X
X
X
Maybe N._qo
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Yes Maybe N__q
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
X
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? __ __ __X
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, benthic organisms, and/or insects)? __ __ X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or
endangered species of snlmals? __ __ X
c. The introduction of new wildlife species into an area? __ __ X
d. A barrier to the migration or movement of animals? __ __ X
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ _ X
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. Altoration to the future planned land use of an area as described
in a community or general plan? __ __ __X
Yes Maybe No
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 __
i0. 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. Homing. 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? __ __
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
R:~PLANNINGX96PA95.IF~ 10/17/95 lab 4
Yes Maybe N_.q
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?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources or energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy?
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 t~nlc~?
e. Storm water drainage systems?
f. Solid waste disposal systems?
g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pat~rn 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?
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?
X
X
X
X
19.
20.
c. Detrimental visual impacts on the surrounding area?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities?
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._Q
X
X
III. DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Earth
l.a.
Maybe. The proposal may result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures.
The site has been previously Faded and there is an existing building of the site. Potential unstable
earth conditions will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the
soils. The landscaping will serve as erosion control. Construction and Fading for the development
will not be at depths which would affect any geologic substructures. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
1.b.
Yes. All grading activity requires some form of disruption, displacement, compaction and/or
overcovering of the soil. Impacts are not considered significant due to the site having been
previously been graded and the small mount of disruption, displacement, compaction and
overcovering of the soil required for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
Yes. The project will result in a change in the site topography and ground surface relief features.
Although the site has been previously graded and developed, additional grading will be necessary
for the realization of this project. Sinco the mount of grading will be minimal, modification to
topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic
or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1 .e,f.
Maybe. The project may result in increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site
during the consu'uction phase of the project. This project may result in changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of approval for
the project. In the long-run, hardscape and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control
for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.g.
No. The project will not result in modifications to any wash, channel, creek, river or lake. While
the project is adjacent to Murrieta Creek, the conditions of approval will be place upon the that will
prohibit modifications to the creek. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
1.h.
Yes. Any development of the site will expose people and property to earthquake hazards sinco 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 Temeoula General Plan Environmental Impact
Report (certified November 9, 1993) states that the project will not expose people or property to
geologic hazards such as landslides or mudslides. No known landslides are located on the site or
proximate ~ the site. The same is true for mudslides. There is no potential for ground failure and
liquefaction in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.i.
Air
2.a,b.
Water
3.a.
3.b.
3.c.
3.d.
3.e.
No. The project area is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone as identified by the State
of California, Resource Agency Depa~uuent of Conservation Special Studies Zone Map. Therefore,
no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Yes. The project will result in a potential for air emissions both in the short and long-run. Air
emissions will occur during the construction phase of the project and objectionable odors may also
result. Impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant, Cumulative air
emissions will also increase due to the project over the long run; however, these are also not
considered significant. The proposed retail building is part of a larger Wurist retail district and will
draw cuswmers already visiting the area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
No. The project will not contribute to alterations of air movement, temperature, or moisture, or
in any change in climate either locally or regionally. The scale of the projea precludes it from
creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area.
No. The project will not result in changes to currents, to the course or direction of water
movements in either marine or fresh waters. While the project site is located adjacent to Murrieta
Creak, conditions of approval will be placed upon the project to insure that the are no changes to
currents, to the course or direction of water. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
Yes. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage paRems and the rate and
mount of sudsre runoff. Previously permeable Found 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 conveyance will
be required for the project to safely and adequately handle the runoff which will be created. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not result in the alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. While the
project site is located within identified floodway and dam inundation areas, the project will be
required to obtain a floodplain development permit. The requirements of the permit will require
the building to be located outside of the floodway and dam inundation areas. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. The project will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody. No
major waterbodies are located in the subject project area. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Maybe. The project may result in discharges into surface waters and 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
R:XPLANNR~O\96pA95.1B$ 10/17195
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,g.
No. The project 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, no changes will occur 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.
3.h.
No. The project will not result in the reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for
public water supplies. Water service currently exists at the project site. Additional water service
will need to be provided by Rancho California Water District (RCWD). This will be provided
upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.i.
No. The project will not expose people or property to water related hazards such as flooding.
Reference response 3.c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Plant Life
4.a-d.
No. The project will not result in a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any native
species of plants, in the reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered
species of plants, in the introduction of new species of plants into the area of native vegetation, in
a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species, or in the reduction in the acreage of any
agricultural crop. The project site has bean previously graded and developed. Currently, there are
no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, or native
vegetation on the site. In addition, this property is not curren~y used as farm land and is not
identified in the General Plan as an area of agricultural significance. Therefore, there will be no
significant impacts as a result of this project.
AnlmalLife
No. The project will not result in a change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species
of animals, in the reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, threatened, or endangered species
of animals, in the introduction of new wildlife species into the area, in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals or in the deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat. The proposed
project is in an area that has bean experiencing urbanization for a number of years. The site is
curren~y graded and there is no indication that any wildlife species exists at this location. The
project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or
deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts
to the species. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to animal life as a result of this
project.
NOi
6.a.
Yes. The projea will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site contnin~ an abandoned
building and vacant land. Any development of the land will result in increases to noise levels
during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Short-term
impacts resulting from construction will mitigated through the limitation of construction to daytime
hours. It is not anticipated that noise generated by retail sales will generate significant amounts of
noise. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or
long run.
6.b,c.
Maybe. The project may expose people to severe noise levels and vibrations during the
construction phase (short run) for each development on the site. 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 exposure to severe vibrations will
be of short duration and will also not be considered significant.
Light and Glare
Yes. The project will ultimately produce and result in light/glare. All development of this nature
result in new light sources. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No.
655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
Land Use
8.a,b
No. While the existing building is abandoned, the site has bean used for commercial purposes for
the past 90 years. The use is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation and
Zoning Ordinance, and the Old Town Specific Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
Natural Resources
9.a,b.
Yes. The project will result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and 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 depiction of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the
proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
Risk of Unset
10.a,b.
No. The current proposal will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous
substances in the event of an accident nor in the use, storage, transport or disposal of any
hazardous or toxic materials. It is not anticipated that the commercial retail use of the site will be
involved in handling any of these materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
10.c.
No. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation
plan. The site will take access from a publicly maintained street and will therefore not impede any
emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
R:XPLANNINGX96pAg$.IP, S 10/17/95 klb l0
Population
11.
No. The project will not result in altering the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the
human population of the area. While some new jobs will be created, due to the limited scale of
the project, large numbers of people will not be relocating to the City of Temecula. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.
No. Reference response 11. Projects of this natore do not cause large numbers of people to
relocate; therefore, additional housing needs will not be created. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Transnorta~on/Circula~on
13.a,c.
No. The project will not generate a significant number of vehicles trips (5 % or greater increase
in vehicle trips to the area) which would require the imposition of mitigation measures. No
significant impacts are expected from development of the site.
13.b.
Yes. The project will result in an increased demand for new parking. Fifty-seven (57) parking
spaces are proposed for the project which is meets the perking requirements of Ordinance No. 348.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.d.
Yes. The project will result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people
and/or goods. People will be travelling to a site that was previously unused which will logically
alter the present circulation pattern. As mentioned in response No. 13.a,c. the project will not
generate a significant mount of new vehicle trips. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
13.e.
No. The project 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 projec~ will result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or
pedestrians. The hazards will increase as the site is developed due to increased activity on the site.
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 project will incrementaly increase the need for fire and police protection;
however, it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision from these entities.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
14.c,
No. Because the project will not have a significant impact on population or housing (see response
No. ll and 12), the proposal will not have a significant effect upon or result in a need for new or
altered school facilities.
R:~LANN1NO\96PAgS.I~S 10/17/95 ~ 1 ]
14.d.
14.e.
14.f.
Enerav
15.a,b.
Utilities
16.a
16.b.
16.c.
16.d.
16.e.
16.f.
No. The proposal will not have a substantial effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
parks or other recreational facilities. Reference responses No. 11, 12, and 14.c. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No. See response No. 13.a. Because the proposal will not result in a significant mount of
additional vehicle trips, it is not anticipated that there will be a need for the maintenance of public
facilities, including roads. Impacts to current and fumro needs for malnmnance of roads as a result
of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered significant.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
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 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. Due to the limited scale of the proposed
development, these impacts are not seen as significant.
No. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to power or
natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered adjacent to the site. 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
communication systems (reference response No. 16.a.). 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 water
systems. Reference response 3.h. 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 sanitary
sewer systems. The project is located within Eastern Municipal Water District's (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.
Yes. The proposal will result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to on-site storm
water drainage systems. Although the project is considered in-fill, the proposal will need to
provide on-alte drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval
for the project. 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 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Human Heldth
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 its recommendations
shall be included as conditions of approval for the project (as per County of Riverside Health
Services Agency transmittal dated October 2, 1995, 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.
AesthetiCs
18.a,b,c.
No. The proposal will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,
nor in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. The project will be in an
architectural style and scale required by the Old Town Specific Plan. 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 oppormnitias. Reference responses No. 11 and 12. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
20.a,b.
Yes. The proposal will result in the alteration and destruction of a historic site. The project is
listed in the Old Town Specific Plan as a historically significant structure. The current structure
was originally used as a gas station and garage. The building was constructed of unreinforced
masonry walls in approximately the year 1910. Over the years, the building has undergone
significant interior and exterior modification. In recent years, the building has been abandoned and
has fallen into a state of disrepair. The building is in such poor structural condition that the
rehabilitation is unfeasible. Also, the proposed demolition of the building is also consistent with
the Historic Preservation Ordinance contained in the Old Town Specific Plan.
According to the City's General Plan Environmental Impact Report, this project is located in an
area of low sensitivity for both archaeological and paleentological resources. Therefore, the
demolition and reconstruction of this structure is not considered to be significant.
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:XPLANNINOX96PAg$.IE3 10/17/95
IV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNw'iCANCE
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
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
tLme while long term impacts will endure well into the
future.)
X
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. )
X
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
R:XPLANN~IOX96PA95.1~q 10/17/95 lab 14
ENVIRO~AL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
l 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:
Signature ' ' ~
Craig D. Ruiz. Assistant Planner
Name and Title
October 9. 1995
Date
R:~PLANNINGX96pA95.1~S 10/17/95 klb
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:~STAFFRP~96PA95,l~C I1/7./9S klb 20
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:LqTAFI~,F~96PA95.1sC 11/2/95
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0096 PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 6, 1995
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0096 PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT- B OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 6, 1995
CITY OF TEMECULA
) BP
BP
BP
BP
OS
CC
H (p.>
O BP
~e RH
BP
-oS
I
I CC
)H
~,,_.
LM
e
VL
CASE NO. - PA95-0096 PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT- C GENERAL PLAN MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 6, 1995
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0096 PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 6, 1995
SITE PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA
,'~v-J.
FRONT STREET ELEVATION
CASE NO. - PA95-0096 PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT- E BUILDING ELEVATION
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 6, 1995
CITY OF TEMECULA
Design Elemenfs of the Western Style
CASE NO. - PA95-0096 PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT- F ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - NOVEMBER 6, 1995