HomeMy WebLinkAbout120495 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
December 4, 1995, 6:00 PM
Rancho California Water Distrlct'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 eaeb. If you desire to speak to
the Commissioners about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Spe~k" 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 oddtess.
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
Approval of Minutes from the September 11, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting
Approval of Minutes from the September 18, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting
Approval of Minutes from the October 16, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting
3. Aproval of the Planning Commission Meeting for January 8, 1995, Due To The Holidays
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Case:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planttar:
Recommendation:
Old Town Specific Plan Amendment
City of Temecula
Old Town Temecula, generally south of Rancho California Road, West
of Interstate 15, North of First Street and east of the westerly residences
on Pujol Street
Amendments to Sections Ill and IV of the Old Town Specific Plan
relative sign regulations, building materials and !and uses.
Exempt.
Craig D. 'Ruiz
Approve
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA95-0114 (Plot'Plan)
Layton-Belling & Associates
Northwest comer of Rancho California and Ynez Roads flower Plaza)
Renovation and expansion to an existing shopping center in phases. First
phase includes a renovation to the existing theater. Subsequent phases
include expansion and renovation to existing retail area.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mat~ew Fagan
Approval
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
Planning Application No. PA95-0112 (Plot Plan)
Oscar and John Sarkisian
South of Rancho California Road, east of the Pond, approximately 500
feet east of the intersection of Rancho California and Yn~z Roads
A 9,934 square foot restaurant, utilizing an existing 3,792 foot building
and adding 6,142 square feet
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Matthew Fagan
Approval
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
OTHER BUSINF.~S
Next meeting: Due to the Holiday's on the 1st and 15th of January, the Regular Planning
Commission meeting will be held on January 8, 1996.
ITEM #2
MINUTES FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 11, 199~
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF A WORKSHOP
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 11, 1995
A Workshop of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday,
September 11,1995, 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:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Webster, Ford, Slaven, Miller
COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
Also present were Community Development Director Gary Thornhill, Attorney Greg Diaz,
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz, Principal Engineer Steve
Cresswell and Senior Planner John Meyer.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bill Vazzana, 39605 Avertida Lynell, expressed concern that as a contiguous property
owner he had not been notified of this workshop.
Commissioner Ford responded the point was well taken and he would see that Mr.
Vazzana got an answer later in the meeting.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. ADoroyal of Aaenda
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve
the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Webster, Ford, Slaven, Miller
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Fahey
PUBLIC HEARING "
2. PA94-0073. PA94-0074, PA94-0075, and PA94-0076 (Rorioauoh Ranch)
Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report and informed the Commission
that several items had not been correctly documented on the tentative plan. One such
item was the middle school which had been omitted in error and will be inserted and
brought back to the Commission.
P.-\t41NBEllVG\0~1195oPC 12/1/~5 ktb
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 11. 1995
He stated staff is concerned with locating the middle school next to the park. Planner
Ruiz responded to Commission questions given at the previous workshop: 1 ) The 66
acre open space area and the 33 acre community park will be maintained by the
County Flood Control or the Home Owners' Association; 2) each lot will have 5-6 trees
and; 3) the traffic study has not been completed.
Tom Cannon, 2618 Mandeville Canyon, representing the applicant, stated there have
been four very informative meetings with neighboring residents and he will be
scheduling additional meetings in order to answer any concerns they may have.
Tom Nieves, The Keith Companies, 22690 Cactus Avenue, Moreno Valley, presented
modified points of the project:
* The Calle Contento connection has been deleted.
* Parks have been centralized and a fifth park has been added.
* The circulation has been modified to increase buffer area to the east.
* There is an increase in 2.5 acre average lots at the south and east borders of
the project.
* 14,000 square foot lots have been added to the interior.
* Land uses have been reconfigured to allow for additional public uses.
* A church has been added to the plan.
He also stated that density had not been decreased due to the cost of the
infrastructure and multi-family homes are not appropriate for this project.
Allen Mensis, the architect, shared a slide presentation showing various home designs
planned in the Roripaugh Ranch.
Senior Planner Meyer asked the applicant when build-out is expected. Allen Mensis
responded that build out would not take place for 10-15 years.
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern regarding habitat preservation and felt it was
below standards and also that minutes of the neighborhood meetings had not been
provided to the Commission.
tom Nieves, applicant's representative, responded the minutes had been lost in his
computer, however, minutes from one meeting are available. He also responded the
U.S. Fish/Wildlife Department had approved the area planned for habitat preservation.
P:\MIMBERVG\O911~5,PC 12/1/95 kLb 2
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP
SEPT!~,MBER 11. 199~
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M.
Joyce Willjams, 33612 Vino Way, neighboring property owner, stated she had
artended the neighbor meetings and could provide minutes to the Commission. She
spoke in opposition to the high density proposed in this project.
Ray Gianton, 33120 Vino Way, spoke in opposition to the high density and the intense
grading taking place in this project.
Janet Dixon, 31860 Via Cordoba, Facilities Director with the Temecula Valley School
District, spoke in regard to the middle school which had been omitted from the plan.
A middle school is needed as well as an elementary school. The District is requesting
infrastructure access to both schools and a mitigation agreement with Temecula School
District will be required.
Larry Bales, 39340 Jessie Circle, expressed concern with the traffic, need for bridges,
severe hydrology and the close proximity of the river. He spoke in favor of decreased
density.
Helen Lasagna, Nicolas Valley, expressed concern on road improvements needed, and
is not in favor of the residents of Nicolas Valley being held financially responsible.
Robert Wheeler, 24280 Washington Ave, Murrieta, expressed concern in regard to the
detention basins of the Santa Gertrudes Creek. He also spoke in opposition to high
density in this project.
Ralph Size, 33135 Vino Way, spoke in opposition to high density in this project.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M.
Chairman Ford expressed his concerns in regard to increased traffic which would be
generated on Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Nicolas Road and Butterfield Road.
The applicant responded that Conditions of Approval require off site improvements
needed due to increased traffiC.
Commissioner Ford read two letters into the record:
1. From the Temecula Citizens for Responsible Government, which submitted
1,950 signed petitions against annexation into the City of Temecula.
2. From the Coalition for Rural Temecula against annexation of Roripaugh Ranch.
P:\t41MBERVGXO~11~5.PC 1211195 kLb 3
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 11. 1995
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Webster expressed concern on two issues: 1 ) the overall density and
he recommended low/medium density i.e., 4~ units per acre; 2) recommended L1 or
L2 zoning on the buffering along the south side of the site and 3) he stated he feels the
commercial area is inappropriate at the planned location.
Commissioner Slaven expressed the following:
* She is opposed to the Home Owners Association being held responsible for the
flood plain.
* The applicant needs to have good dialog with the school district and locate
schools where appropriate.
* She is not in support of the commercial area location.
* She recommended additional buffer around the perimeter and more open space
should be considered.
* She is opposed to high density, the applicant needs to be more responsive to
rural neighbors.
She is not in favor of the loop road.
* She recommended the consideration for bridges.
Commissioner Miller expressed his concern with high density.
He recommended no
more than one acre parcels in the perimeter, with smaller lots as the development
moves toward the interior.
Commissioner Webster agreed with the eight (8) listed concerns from staff.
Commissioner Ford expressed disappointment that the workshop was not properly
noticed. He stated staff needs to make sure the noticing is appropriate.
Commissioner Ford expressed..the following:
* The density too high.
* Buffering needs to be increased on the east and south side.
* Landscaping should be a key component in buffering areas away from the
perimeter.
P:\VINBERVG\O~1195,PC 12/1/95 ktb 4
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 11. 1995
* He is in opposition to the loop road and recommended a grid system.
* A move toward lessening the grade should be made.
* Circulation is a primary issue.
* He is not convinced removing Calle Contento and Butterfield Stage Road as
through roads will be effective.
* The applicant should address equestrian trails, which could be tied into the open
space element.
* He recommended flexibility on lot sizes, a maximum or minimum could be set
in some areas.
The direction from the Commission is as follows:
1. Additional buffering on the east side and the south side is needed.
2. Density in the amount of three (3) units per acre in the Estate Area which
should be used as transition property. Director Thornhill will work with the
applicant on the transition area.
3. Eliminate the loop road.
4. Allow additional access for bike riding and pedestrian crossing back and forth
to the open space.
5. Reduce the grading away from the sensitive areas and maintain original land
forms.
6. Recommend less grading in planning area three by reducing the density.
7. The 4.2 acre commercial location should be eliminated. Staff will come back
with alternative uses for this site.
8. Establish minimum usable lot areas rather than minimum parcel size.
9. Reduce overall project density. The recommendation is between 3 units per
acre gross, and the Southwest Area Plan which would be between 1800 - 2000
units.
Commissioner Webster wanted to state for the record that he did not say he was in
favor of high density. He said low/medium density.
P:\~INBERVG\O911~5.PC 12/1/f5 kLb 5
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 11. 1995
DIRECTOR'$ REPORT
Director Gary Thornhill reported that personnel cross-training will begin on September
12 and be completed in 2 to 3 months.
He is regretfully to announced that former City Manager Dave Dixon has passed away.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Ford invited the Commission to attend the City Council Workshop on
Annexation scheduled for September 19, 1995.
ADJOURNMENT
On a motion made by Commissioner Slaven the workshop was adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
Next regular meeting, September 18, 1995, 6:00 p.m., Rancho California Water bistrict's
Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
Chairman Steve Ford
Secretary
P:\~I~BERVG\091195.PC 12/1/95 kLb 6
MINUTES FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 18, 1995
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on
Monday, September 18, 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: Webster, Ford, Slaven, Miller, Fahey
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Also present were Community Development Director Gary Thornhill, Planning Manager Debbie
Ubnoske, Attorney Greg Diaz, Senior Planner John Meyer, Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan,
Principle Engineer Steve Cresswell.
Chairman Ford called for public comments on items not listed on the Agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Chairman Ford requested that item #4 on the Agenda be moved and discussed after Item #10.
1. APProval of Aaenda
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the
Agenda as amended.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
Director's HearinQ UPdate
Webster, Ford, Slaven, Miller, Fahey
None
None
None given.
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18. 1995
Attorney Discussion of Beer and Wine License APProval Process
City Attorney Diaz clarified the process and steps to be taken for the approval for beer
and wine licenses in the City. He also stated that the Commission is not the official
authority. The final authority would be the City Council and is subject to appeal of a
Planning Commission ruling. The Commission is required to approve or disapprove the
license on the basis of character of the premises, manner of conducting business, ratio
to population and convenience to the public.
ApprOval of Beer and Wine License for ShakesDeare's Pub
Lee Cowell, 25444 Blackhorn Drive, Murrieta, spoke as owner of Shakespeare's Pub
to be located on Jefferson Road and requested approval for the beer and wine license.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the
beer and wine license for Shakespeares.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:.
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
Webster, Ford, Slaven, Miller, Fahey
None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
6. ADDrOVal Of Beer and Wine License for Chevron
Chairman Ford stepped down on this Item #6 and Item #7 due to possible conflicts
of interests. Commissioner Fahey presiding.
Chris Smith, 12625 High Bluff Drive, S.D., Landgrant Inc., spoke for the applicant in
requesting consideration of application approval, based on a designation of public
convenience.
Noushad Hyder, 17890 Castleton Street, City of Industry, representing the applicant,
spoke in favor of application approval.
It was moved by Commissioner Miller'and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the
beer and wine license for Chevron.
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18. 1995
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Webster, Slaven, Miller, Fahey
NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: I COMMISSIONERS: Ford
7. ApprOval of Beer and Wine License for Ralohs
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the
beer and wine license for Ralphs.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS:
8. Approval of Beer and Wine License for Sunshine Market
Jim O'Rourk, 41403 Calle Calavo, the applicant, requested consideration of approval
for the beer and wine license application.
. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the
beer and wine license for Sunshine Market based on public convenience.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
Webster, Slaven, Ford, Miller, Fahey
None
None
Ford
Aooroval of the Conceotual Gradina Plan for the Westside Specific Plan
Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report and detailed the plan
modifications as per previous commission requests.
3
Webster, Slaven, Ford, Miller, Fahey
None
None
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18. 1995
Commissioner Ford expressed concern on the large amount of grading proposed in Area
B and Area C.
Commissioner Fahey expressed concern regarding the possibility of landslides on Pujol
Street. Engineer Cresswell explained that the fill dirt would be engineered and
compacted which would protect the hill from sliding.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the
conceptual grading plan for the Westside Specific Plan.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
Webster, Slaven, Ford, Miller, Fahey
None
None
Chairman Ford called for a recess to a Closed Session at 7:28 P.M.
The purpose of the Closed Session is to conference with legal counsel regarding the
existing litigation of Old Vail Partners v. County of Riverside and City of Temecula,
Case No. 253-598.
The regular meeting of the City .of Temecula Planning Commission was reconvened at 8:00
P.M.
10. Plannine Aoolication No. PA94-0128 (Conditional Use Permit)
Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report by highlighting
modifications on the site .plan as recommended and requested by the Planning
Commission. Staff recommends approval.
Commissioner Miller recommended additional landscaping to be added to the rear of
the building in order to hide the trash bins.
Commissioner Ford asked if it were possible to add landscaping to further articulate the
building.
Commissioner Webster asked if there was an agreement on Condition #66B. The
applicant responded that there are still questions on what "fair share" on improving
Rancho California Road meant financially.
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18.
Commissioner Ford stated the site has only 10 parking spaces, while 12 were
recommended. The applicant responded that 10 spaces were required as per the
Conditions of Approval.
Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 P.M.
Ray Benbowali, representing Unocal, stated all modifications requested by the
Commission had been adhered to and he would like to request the Commission
consider approval on the beer and wine license at the same time.
Stephan Jamieson, 426 Culver Blvd, Attorney for Unocal stated he was available to
answer any questions directed to the project.
James Kawamura, 3347 Michelson Drive, Consultant for Unocal, stated he was
available to answer questions in regard to traffic issues.
Michael Brewer, 44113 Northgate Ave, spoke in favor of the mini mart proposed at the
Unocal Station.
Barry Hammond, 3 Hutton Centre, representing Unocal, spoke regarding the policy
concerns on dedication and the "fair share" mitigation requests on improvements and
would be available for questions.
Stephan Jamieson, Attorney for Unocal, requested the beer and wine license and the
Conditional Use Permit be considered together.
Commissioner Ford stated that the hours for selling beer and wine had been discussed
previously to be earlier than 1:00 p.m.
Stephan Jamieson responded that the hours of sale would comply with the
Commission's request.
April D. Smith, 3 Hutton Centre Dr., representative for the landscape architect, stated
the minimum tree box size is 24" and landscaping would be expanded to the ultimate
right-of-way by providing 20% additional planting.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 8:45 P.M.
Commissioner Webster expressed concern for the architectural treatment on the rear
elevation design and recommends it be gabled to match the front of the building.
Commissioner Slaven expressed thefollowing:
* The block wall enclosure is not appropriate and she recommended slump stone
or sand stone and not cement. This is to be directed by staff.
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18. 1995
* She is not in favor of the bright orange stripe on the building front.
* She recommended the roof color be variegated and not a solid color.
Commissioner Fahey stated the following:
* She is in support of staff addressing the design of the rear of the building.
Commissioner Ford stated the following:
· He recommended employees park in the rear leaving spaces for customers.
* He supports addressing the design for the rear of the building.
· He is concerned with the roof color.
· He does not recommend the orange stripe on the building front.
Ray Benbowali, explained the orange stripe is the corporate image of Unocal and is
needed for this purpose on the front of the building.
Commissioner Ford called for a straw vote on the issue of the orange stripe.
Commissioner Miller: OK
Commissioner Slaven: NO
Commissioner Fahey: Recommended small band of color and not lit
Commissioner Webster: OK
Commissioner Ford: Against the illumination of the band
Commissioner Fahey suggested that since three of the Commission members felt the
band was inappropriate as proposed, staff could work with the applicant and allow
other signage to include the corporate identification.
Commissioner
enclosure:
Ford called for a straw vote on the architectural treatment of the trash
Commissioner Miller:
Commissioner Slaven:
Commissioner Fahey:
Commissioner Webster:
Commissioner Ford:
S!ump stone should be used
Slump stone
Only condition is that it match the building
Agree to modify the rear architectural treatment
Slump stone
Commissioner Webster spoke in favor of variegated tile as the roof tile color.
recommendation received consensus of the Commission.
This
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 18. 199S
Commission reached consensus on designating parking spaces for employees in the
rear leaving front spaces for customers.
Commissioner Ford requested clarification that if the beer and wine license was
approved what are the alternate hours of sales. Applicant responded they would agree
to 10:00 P.M. as the last hour for sales of beer and wine.
Applicant expressed a continued concern on Condition #66B in regard to "fair share"
mitigation, because of the unknown cost involved. City Attorney Diaz responded that
the applicant has a right to request modification to conditions.
Commissioner Ford requested that staff work with the applicant and Condition #66B
will remain as written.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 9:25 P.M.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the
Conditional Use Permit, Planning Application PA94-0128.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Webster, Slaven, Ford, Miller, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the
beer and wine license for Unocal.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Webster, Slaven, Ford, Miller, Fahey
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
11. Develonment Code
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report. General Plan issue #17 on GPA
land use request for property between I-15/Ynez Rd. Winchester Hills Specific Plan.
Applicant is requesting 120 acres land use change from Business Park to Service
Commercial, should be removed from Specific Plan overlay. Recommend new overlay
designation with stipulation should developer wish to pursue something other than a
7
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 18. 199~
retail center that the specific plan would still have to be enacted and this would give
city control over review of the property to make sure it is developed in either situation
it is developed in a comprehensive fashion.
Commissioner Miller requested clarification of what can be built without the Specific
Plan if the change is adopted.
Senior Planner Meyer stated the property owner would like to put in some type of retail
center, we would for the next meeting further develop what type of overlay this is
going to be to better define the type of commercial center he is proposing.
Commissioner Miller stated he thought Senior Planner Meyer said there was a certain
type that would not require a specific plan?
Senior Planner Meyer stated yes, if the applicant were to receive the Service
Commercial designation there could be a number of uses that would be permitted by
right that the City's concern might not be appropriate in that location, such as strip
centers.
Commissioner Fahey - So there is no designation other than Specific Plan at this time?
Senior Planner Meyer - I think the applicant would request that a commercial
designation be placed at this time and Service Commercial seems most appropriate.
Stephen Bieri, 417 Carmel Street, San Marcos - spoke in support of change from BP
as C. Area across freeway and adjoining is zoned SC we believe there is ample reason
for consistency there. SP will still be required for everything east of Jackson, for the
time being remaining residential. The area we are requesting the SP requirements not
be put over is on area in red. Wants to attract good retail users because property has
freeway frontage.
All Commissioners support change.
City Attorney Diaz reported that no action was taken in the Closed Session of the
Planning Commission.
Second item. Senior Planner Meyer - General Plan Amendment on 79S. Old Vail
Partner's have requested to h&ve the land use changed from 79S from PO to Highway
Tourist Commercial for this property. Staff believes Professional Office with Specific
Plan overlay remain the designation for property and recommend no change.
Chairman Ford stated the applicant is not here but correspondence will be read into the
record and no vote will be taken tonight.
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 18. 1995
Harold EIIkan representing Old Vail Partners, 5230 Carrol Canyon Road, San Diego.
Requesting SC zoning is consistent with the prior CPS zone. Feels SC zoning, which
is different than the staff report shows, allows feed lot and market which is presently
on the property whereas the commercial CC does not. Therefore, requests the
commission to vote in favor of CS zoning for two parcels. Zoning should include both
parcels.
CommissiOner Fahey requested clarification, with the Specific Plan overlay the
applicant has the opportunity to have mixed use on property by submitting a plan to
the City?
Senior Planner Meyer stated, yes the applicant does have opportunity to submit a
specific plan for evaluation and brought to Planning Commission and City Council and
there is language in the Specific Plan text that allows mixed uses.
Commissioner Fahey, no changes necessary. All commissioners concur.
Chairman Ford stated the designation Specific Plan allows what the applicant is after
for commercial use, mixed use. Direct staff to write correspondence to applicant on
finding.
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske reported the Workshop on Annexation scheduled
for September 19, 1995, at City Hall had been cancelled and would be rescheduled in
October.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
None given.
The next meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission is scheduled for October 2,
1995 6:00 P.M. at Rancho California Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road,
Temecula, California.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner Sla~n to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 P.M.
Secretary
Chairman Steve Ford
lVl]NUTES FROM THE
OCTOBER 16, 1995
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES. OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 16, 1995
A regular meeting of the City of Temecuta Planning Commission was held on Monday, October
16, 1995, at Rancho California Water District Board Room, Winchester Road, Temecula,
California..Chairman Steve Ford presiding.
PRESENT: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Webster
ABSENT: Fahey
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Aoorovel of Aaenda
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve
the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
Miller, Slaven, Ford, Webster
NOES: None
ABSENT: Fahey
Commissioner Fahey arrived at 6:05 p.m.
DIRECTOR'S UPDATE
Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated that she was available to answer questions on the
cases submitted in the written report. There were no questions from the Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3. PA 95-0078
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report listing issues on the
development agreement to reduce development impact fees and establish a time
schedule to complete the Recreation Center in the Margarita Village Specific
Plan. He outlined the issues at hand: 1) the interim public facilities fee, at
$3,000 per unit for the first 5 years; and 2) the completion date. Both issues
have been addressed in the MOU. Senior Planner Meyer asked the Commission
ta modify page eight (8), number five (5) by deleting RSA fees from the
paragraph.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 16. 1995
Commissioner Webster requested the status on establishing standard fees.
Planning Manager Ubnoske responded the Planning Department was finalizing
fees and these will be taken before the City Council for approval.
Chairman Ford expressed concern regarding the term of the Development
Agreement Modification. Assistant City Attorney Diaz responded this is a 10
year Agreement; after the first five years they will pay the fee that has been
approved for the next five years.
Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 6:15 P.M.
Charlie Kluger, 4300 Fir Avenue Seal Beach, representative for Chardonnay
Hills, substantiated the completion date on the Recreation Center and said he
was available to answer any questions in regard to the project.
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 6:20 P.M.
Assistant Attorney Diaz noted the scheduling of the recreation center is one of
the benefits the applicant has granted the City.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and secqnded by Commissioner Slaven to adopt the
Negative Declaration and to Adopt Resolution No. 95 - recommending approval of PA 95-
0078.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Fahey, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
4. Develonment Code
John Meyer presented the Development Code Revisions and recommended the
Commission go through the Revisions Addendum on an item-by-item basis.
Chairman Ford opened the Public Hdaring at 6:25 P.M., there being no requests to speak,
Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 6:25 P.M.
Chairman Ford recommended the Commission go over the revised code by
Chapter.
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 16. 1995
Commissioner Webster expressed concern on page three (3) in regard to mobile
home parks. Attorney Diaz responded that the mobile home park applications
would be heard on an individual basis when they come before the Commission.
Commissioner Webster discussed Chapter 9.060.20- Description of Residential
Districts - and requested clarification on the square footage, written as 10,000,
which should be 10,900to be consistent with the General Plan. Senior Planner
Meyer will research this and get back to the Commission.
Commissioner Slaven discussed Chapter 9.24 Off-Street Parking and Loading
and recommended adding Recreational Vehicle to the restricted list.
Chairman Ford discussed page 15 - Lot Substandard and asked if this had not
been modified before. Senior Planner Meyer responded that was correct and
therefore should not be included in the revisions.
The Commission reviewed questions received in the correspondence from
Assistant City Attorney Diaz regarding the Development Code and the Revisions
Addendum.
Chairman Ford discussed Question 3 - Noticino Perimeters - Mailina List -
Assistant City Attorney Diaz requested clarification of the Commission's
direction to obtain an updated mailing list. He stated that policy direction is
needed before amending Section 9.03.030(c). A unanimous straw vote
resulted in adding "Length of time the project has been in the planning process"
as the language to be included in Section 9.03.030(c).
Chairman Ford discussed Question #7 - Conditional Use Permit for Service
Stations - It was recommended language be included to regulate sale of alcohol,
where motor vehicle fuel is sold, that would require certain findings and criteria
be met. The Commission unanimously agreed and directed that specific
language be added to the Development Code.
Chairman Ford discussed Question #8 - Outdoor Plav Areas for Dav Care
Centers - In accordance with the California Child Day Care Facilities Act, Health
and Safety Code Section 1596.70 et sea., the City may establish certain
performance standards such as traffic, parking, spacing and concentration, and
noise. The consensus of the Commission was to add "Outdoor Play Areas" to
the list. "
Chairman Ford discussed Question #12 - Work Related Vehicles Parkino in
Residential Zone - Assistant City Attorney Diaz responded that the definition
chosen by the Commission "Specialized Work Related Vehicles" is different
from the Vehicle Code definition of commercial vehicles. He pointed out the
following: "On Street" parking can not be regulated by the Development Code.
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 16. 199S
"Off Street" parking could possibly be regulated with noticing, substantial
posting would be required in order to restrict work-related vehicles from parking
in residential areas.
Commissioner Slaven recommended all commercial vehicles be restricted from
parking in residential areas.
Commissioner Webster expressed concern with restricting "specialized work-
related vehicles", in the situation where the owner has only one vehicle for
transportation. He stated that he is generally opposed to commercial vehicles
parking in residential areas.
Chairman Ford took a straw vote and it was approved to strike the language
"specialized work-related vehicle definition" in ChaDter 9.24020 (h).
Commissioner Slaven recommended the phrase "Recreational Vehicle" be
included in this Code Section. The Commission agreed.
Chairman Ford discussed Question #13 - Assistant City Attorney Diaz
responded that the Commission has the authority to impose a higher handicap
parking designation, but changes have not been reflected in the draft code,
pending direction from the Commission.
Commissioner Slaven recommended the Code reflect an option for requesting
additional handicap parking spaces, if needed, on a case by case basis.
Senior Planner Meyer stated that staff felt comfortable setting a standard for
handicap parking.
Chairman Ford called for a straw vote and the direction of the Commission is
to retain the Code as written and each plan will be reviewed by the
Commission.
Chairman Ford discusse;d' Question #14- "Compact Car Parking Space
Restriction".
Larry Markham stated that the vehicle ordinance is flexible enough in regard to
Compact Car spaces.
A straw vote was taken an'~l it was agreed by the Commission that the
restriction to require compact car spaces be eliminated.
Chairman Ford discussed Question #16 - Coveted Easements - Assistant City
Attorney Diaz stated that the Ordinance is mandated by statute and the
Commission has no option to avoid the public notice requirements.
P:XMHqI/TES~I01695.PC 1211/95 klb 4
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 16. 1995
Attorney Diaz recommended that prior to the motion the Title of "(~irector of
Planning" be changed to "Director of Community Development" and this be
reflected in the new Development Code.
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey end seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the
Development Code as modified, and to include the zoning map and the general plan.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
5 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Slaven, Ford, Fahey, Webster
NOES:
0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
None given.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Chairman Ford requested the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings
come before the Commission earlier to review.
Commissioner Slaven asked when the Development Code would be available for
distribution. Senior Planner Meyer responded that the Development Code will
be taken before the Council and may be available by the November 6 meeting.
Commissioner Miller requested the status of the Roripaugh Ranch Project. He
recommended a joint session with Council to be informed of the Council's
direction in regard to the desired density.
Chairman Ford stated that the recommendation for the number of housing units
previously recommended by the Commission should be reviewed. This can be
done through tapes or minutes of the Roripaugh Ranch meeting. He was not
certain, but thought it might be 1800 - 2400 homes recommended.
Commissioner Fahey recommended a joint workshop with the Council to be held
on the concept of annexation~
A straw vote was taken and it was agreed by the Commission that staff look
into scheduling a joint workshop, in a timely manner, with the Council.
Planning Manager Ubnoske will look into this workshop.
TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 16. 1995
Commissioner Slaven expressed concern regarding the term of appointment for
Commission and Committee members. She stated that it takes at least two (2)
three-year terms to fully learn the Codes and Regulations, specifically on the
Planning Commission. She recommended the City Council consider a longer
term limit.
It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to adjourn the
meeting at 8:15 P.M.
Next meeting: November 6, 1995 - Regular Planning Commission Meeting at Rancho California
Water District's Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, CA 92390
Steve Ford, Chairman
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
P:XMINUTESXI01695.PC 1211195 klb 6
ITEM #3
APPROVAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
FOR
JANUARY 8, 1995
ITEM #4
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 4, 1995
Old Town Specific Plan Amendments
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
RE-AFFIRM the previously adopted Negative Declaration
for the Old Town Specific Plan; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 95- recommending approval of
the amendments to the Old Town Specific Plan based
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report; and
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
City of Temecula
PROPOSAL:
Amendments to Sections Ill, IV, and Appendix No. 1 of the Old
Town Specific Plan relative to sign regulations, site design,
building materials and land uses.
LOCATION:
Old Town Temecula, generally south of Rancho California Road,
West of Interstate 15, North of First Street and east of the
westerly residences on Pujol Street (See Exhibit 3A)
BACKGROUND
On February 9, 1994, the City Council adopted the Old Town Specific Plan (OTSP). The
stated purpose of the OTSP is to provide a master plan for the ultimate development of the
Old Town area. The document provides a comprehensive plan for land use, development
regulations, design guidelines, vehicular circulation, parking, development incentives and other
related actions aimed at implementin~ the goals and objectives set forth in the Specific Plan.
While the document has functioned well during the first eighteen months of implementation,
members of the public, the Old Town Local Review Board (OTLRB) and staff have noted some
items within the document that may be either unclear or may have been omitted. On August
22, 1995, the staff requested direction from the City Council to review the issues within
Specific Plan that have been identified to date. On October 9, November 1 and November 13,
1995 the OTLRB reviewed the proposed amendments. The Board voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed amendments.
ANALYSIS
The following is a list of the issues that have been reviewed by the OTLRB to date and a brief
description of each item:
SiQn Reaulations -The 0TLRB and staff have reviewed the sign materials, sign size and
sign types allowed in the Old Town Area. The Board and staff feel that the current
regulations are too restrictive and have recommended that an increase in the size and
number of signs shall be increased. Attachment No. 2 provides a detailed description
of the Board's and staff's recommendation.
Sidewalk Cafes - Staff has deleted the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for
sidewalk cafes (See Attachment 2). Staff feels that the review by the OTLRB, and the
Planning Director is sufficient. However, should the sidewalk cafe propose to serve
alcohol, a Conditional Use Permit would be required per Ordinance No. 94-16. The
Board concurs with staff's recommendation.
BuildinQ Materials - The OTSP, in some instances, does not provide clear direction as
to allowable building materials. Staff has provided language to modify this section of
the Plan (See Attachment 2). The Board concurs with staff's recommendation.
m
Bulldine Set Backs - There is a discrepancy between minimum and maximum set backs
in Section III and IV. Staff is recommending that Section IV be modified to be
consistent with Section III (See Attachment 2). The Board concurs with staff's
recommendation.
Vendor Carts - The location for vender carts has caused some confusion. Also, staff
would like to extend the approval period for carts from two years to three years. Staff
has provided language to clarify this section of the Plan (see Attachment 2). The Board
concurs with staff's recommendation.
m
Use Matrix - The use matrix does not allow Educational & Tutoring uses in the Tourist
Retail Commercial zone. Staff feels that this should be an allowable use on side streets
and non-ground floor spaces along Front and Main Streets. The Board concurs with
staff's recommendation.
Boundary Modification - The Temecula Town Association recommended that the
Specific Plan boundary be expanded along Pujol Street from First Street to the end of
the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) property (See Attachment No. 2). The
Association felt that this area is part of the Old Town Community.
Staff agrees that development of this area will influence Old Town. However, staff
believes an expansion of the Specific Plan may not be the best way to regulate uses
and development of this area. Rather, staff recommends combining the Pujol corridor
with the South Front Street Corridor as an independent Specific Plan Area. This will
provide for appropriate use standards and regulations to support Old Town but may not
have as strict architectural and site plan standards. The Board concurs with staff's
recommendation.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The Old Town Specific Plan has effectively maintained and protected Old Town Temecula.
However, staff has discovered that some minor changes are necessary to make the document
more usable and understandable. It is staff's opinion that the proposed amendments will make
accomplish this goal.
FINDINGS
1. The amendments are consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan.
The amendments are compatible with the existing and proposed future development
of historic Old Town Temecula.
Mitigation measures in Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No. 213 will
reduce the impacts of the project.
Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 4
Proposed Specific Plan Amendments - Blue Page 7
Exhibits - Blue Page - Blue Page 22
A. Vicinity Map
R:XSTAFFRPTXOTSP-AI.I*C 11/30/95
ATTAGHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
R:L~TAFFRF~OTSP-AI.I~C 11130/95 Idb 4
ATTACHNII~NT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMI~NDING APPROVAL
OF AMENDM~NT NO. 1 OF THE OLD TOWN SPECIFIC
PLAN PROPOSING CHANGES TO SECTION HI, IV AND
APPENDIX NO. 1, RELATIVE TO RELATIVE TO SIGN
RF_~ULATIONS, SITE DESIGN, BUIIJ}ING MATERIALS
AND LAND USES AND RECOMMENDING THE
PREPARATION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE AREA
SOUTH OF OLD TOWN TEMECULA.
WHEREAS, The maintenance and protection of historic Old Town Temecula has been
an important issue and concern to the citizens of Temecula; and
WHEREAS, The General Plan for the City of Temecula calls for the preparation of a
Specific Plan for Old Town Temecula; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 1994, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the
Old Town Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 1995, the City Council directed staff to review said Specific
Plan and recommend any necessary amendments; and
WHEREAS, on October 9, 1995, November 1, 1995 and November 13, 1995, the Old
Town Local Review Board, at duly noticed public hearings considered said amendments at time
interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said application on January 23, 1995
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Old Town Local Review Board meeting, the Board
recommended approval of said amendments;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETER.MINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes
the following findings, to wit:
1. The amendments are consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan.
2. The amendments are compatible with the existing and proposed future
development of historic Old Town Temecula.
3. Mitigation measures in Environmental Impact Report for Specific Plan No.
213 will reduce the impacts of the project.
4. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. A Negative Declaration was adopted with the
adoption of the Specific Plan. The proposed amendments will not result in any additional
significant impacts that were not identified and mitigated in the previous environmental review.
Therefore, Negative Declaration for the Old Town Specific Plan is hereby re-certified.
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of December, 1995.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of
December, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBIE UBNOSKE
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRFi~OTSP-AI.I~C 11130/95 t. lb 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
Strikc out words are proposed to be deleted from the Plan
SECTION III
G. SIGN REGULATIONS
The purpose of the sign regulations is to provide the means for adequate identification
of buildings and businesses by regulating and controlling the design, size, and location
of all signs within the Specific Plan area except the Highway Tourist Commercial
District, Medium Density Residential District, High Density Residential District, and the
Community Commercial District where the sign requirements of the Development Code
shall apply. These regulations do not apply to service stations. The requirements of
the Development Code shall apply for service stations.
The intent of these regulations is to establish specific standards for all exterior signing
that will ensure continuity, consistency, and harmony with the architectural quality of
the Old Town environment as it may have appeared in the early 1900's.
1. Camellance Reauired
No person shall erect, reerect, construct, enlarge, alter, move, improve, remove,
convert, or equip any sign or sign structure or cause or permit the same to be
done contrary to or in violation of any of the provisions of these sign
regulations.
2. Uncertainty Of Sign Reaulations
If a situation arises that is not covered by these sign regulations or there is
ambiguity as to these regulations or the type of permit required, the Director
shall provide written interpretation after consulting the Development Code.
3. General Sian Standards
No flags or pcnnantc of any typc may be utilized to draw attention to
any usc or struaturo on o permanent basis. Colored flags whioh oontain
no writing, insignia or loges may be displayed 2 timcs pcr ycar for
periods not to exoocd 30 days. This dace not prooludc thc display of
national, state, or local govornmcnt flogs or other flogs, pennants, or
banners whioh ore rominir, cont of the carly 1000's.
(RELOCATED Tb 7m)
The area of a wall sign or logo with individual letters shall be measured
by a rectangle around the outside of the lettering and/or the pictorial
symbol.
Planning and Building Departments review and approval is required prior
to the placing, erecting, moving, or reconstructing of any sign within the
Specific Plan area, unless expressly exempted.
R:~,STAFFRFI~OTSP*AI.FC 11130/95 Id~ 8
Any project that proposes to provide space for more than one tenant
shall indicate the size and approximate location of all signs to be erected
on the property at the time of initial application. Signs shall be shown
on elevation drawings with accurate dimensions provided. The Director
may also require the following information:
Method of illumination;
Sign materials and colors; and
Method of attachment.
All permanent signs shall require a permit prior to erecting or attaching
the sign. Rofor to thc Dovolopmont Codo for dcsoription of portoits
Prohibited Sians in Old Town
Freestanding signs on lots with less than 2~0~? of road frontage ~
Roof mounted signs
Animated signs, including time and temperature displays
Rotating, moving, emitting, or flashing signs
Balloon signs
Ambient air balloons
Internally illuminated signs including window locations
Neon tube 'signs
Window signs above the second story
Paper, cloth, or plastic streamers or bunting - except holiday decorations
Formed plastic or injection molded signs
Statues used for advertising
Traffic sign replicas
Vehicle signs'
Internally illuminated awnings
Backlit illuminated awnings
Plywood Signs
Signs Mounted on railings, banisters, baluster or porch column
Four or more non-governmental flags
Any sign proh~ited by the Development Code and not expressly
"Permitted" in this Specific Plan
r~S. Permitted SiQns
· Wall Mc;~,tcd Signs (business identification)
· Woll Signs (~dvorti~ing i.o. 18g0's ~tylo) (Supergraphics)
· Monumont Sigrv3
R:~,STAFFRF~OTSP-AI.PC 11/30/95 klb 9
Window Signs
Awning Signs
Projecting Signs
Under Canopy Signs
Temporary A-Frame or Sandwich Board Signs
Temporary Signs
Flags, Non-governmentaL 3 or lass
Accessory Signs
Monu Boi'::d~
· Da;ly Spst-'ial S.gns
Difecf~or'ml Signs
Multi-Tenant S~ens
Hanging S.gns
Rear Facing Signs
Interior Facing Signs
Indirectly Illuminated Signs
~. Sign Standards
Business establishments having single frontage onto · public street or buildings wi~h
one building entrance are permitted a maximum total square'footage ehual to 'I,5
square feet per linear front foot ~f business establishment, 'EaCh business may.use any
combination of the following signs .to arrive at the total .allowable sqQare footage.
However, each sign shall not exceed the maximum square footage prescribed below.
Business establishments having frontage onto two phbllc streets are permitted a
maximum total square footage equal to 1.5 square feet p~r linear front foot of business
establishment along the primary street and 0.5 square feet per linear front foot of
business establishment along the secondary street. Each business may use any
combination of the following signs to arrive at the tote! allowable Square footage.
However, each sign shall not exceed the maximum square footage prescribed below.
a. Wall .",*.:==t:-a- Signs
Maximum of
establishment.
following:
one square foot per linear front foot of business
To be located not higher than the lowest of the
O
l
O
25 feet above grade;
Bottom of the sill line of the second floor windows; or
Cornice |~ne of the building.
b. Supergraphics
The purpose of allowing wall supergraphics is to allow the advertising
or depiction of products that may have been available in an 1890's
marketplace. Maximum size shall not exceed 60% of walt surface.
R:~STAFFRPT',OTSP-AI.PC 11/30/95 Id~ 10
The purl~o-~e' of allowing is 'buildihg name"sign~ is t0:za!low the
identification of buildings. Maximum size shall not exceed 'l.0% of wall
surface of the building. In the event that a building name adve~i-~es'~n~
or more businesses located within said building, the signage will not be
considered a.buildjdg name' sig~ but.wilt be .jncluded in total square
footage permitted for that business or building.
Monumont ~<~ Signs
Maximum of one double face sign per street frontage if said street
frontage is over 150 feet. The m~xirnum' square footage of a
freestanding sign shall be 16 square ~e~ Height of sign shall not
exceed 6 feet above grade. Width shall not exceed 4 feet. Each tenant
placard shall not exceed 12" high. Sign may only be indirectly
illuminated. Internal illumination is prohibited.
Permanent Window Signs
On ground level, coverage shall not exceed 20 percent of the total
window and door area visible from the exterior of the building; on
second level, coverage shall not exceed 30 percent per window. (No
window signs are permitted above second level).
Under Canopy Signs
One por businoso oilowed ~'t(~iiunder a canopy, roof, covered
walkway, or porch; maximum size of 3 square foot por door ontronoo;
minimum of 7' vertical clearance shall be required from walking grade to
the bottom of the sign.
Awning Signs
On ground floor level; 20 percent maximum coverage allowed of the
total exterior surface area of each awning. On the second floor level and
above; 10 percent maximum coverage allowed of the total exterior
surface area of each awning. Internal illumination prohibited.
Projecting Signs,
Ono por bu~nosc allowod; maximum size may not exceed 3~ square feet
and shall not extend more than 3 feet from the wall surface. No
illumination allowed. Projecting signs shall only be attached to buildings,
not to poles or other signs. Projecting signs may encroach into the
public right-of-way a maximum of 3 feet subject to the approval of the
Director.
R:XSTAFFRPTXOTSp,AI.IpC 11/30/95 klb 11
hL ~a~ A-Frame/Sandwich Board Sign
One A-frame or sandwich board sign allowed per property for up to 12
days per month (i.e. on Friday, Saturday, Sunday). Maximum size of 3.5
feet high by 2 feet wide. No illumination allowed.
Temporary Signs
Temoorary arand acenine and soecial event sians are allowed for each
business establishment on the exterior wall. Signs shall not be attached
to any other freestanding element (porch balustrade, garden wall, tree,
monument sign, vehicle, etc.). Signs shall be constructed of cloth,
canvas, or other durable material. Plastic or vinyl banner signs are not
permitted. Neon colored/day glow banner signs are prohibited.
Temporary signs shall abide by the provisions of the Ordinance
Regulating Temporary Signs, as amended.
j. Menu Boards
One mcnu board, up to '1 scluaro foot in area, is allowed for each
restaurant or other acting cstoblishmont. Menu Boards may contain only
the name of the ostobliohmont and the food available insidc. The menu
board must bc located on c well odjoocnt to the main customer
k. Multi Tenant Projcot Signs
Any project that proposes to provide apace for more than one tenant
shall indiaarc the .~izo end approximate location of oll signo to be erected
on thc property at the timc of initial application. Signs shall bc shown
on elevation drawings with accurate dimensions provided. The Director
may also require the following information:
Method of illumination;
Sign materials and colera; and
Method of attachment.
I. Permits Required
All permanent signs shall rcquirc a pcrmit prior to erecting or attaching
the sign. Rofo~ to the Development Coda for description of permits
A maximt-'rn cf three colored Ilags whech contain no writing, insignia or
'OOf;S P:ay be dmsi;layt:.:j .~! :.i:ly :),'1.,.; Time.
R:\STAFFRIrP. OTSIP-AI,PC 11/30/95 klb 12
One menu board, up to 4 square feet in area, is alh~Wed for each
restaurant or other eating establishment. Menu Boards may
contain only the name'~of the. establishment and the food
available inside. The menu board must be located on a wall
adjacent to the main customer entrance.
Daily Special. Signs
One displ;iy area, up to 4 square .feet, in area, is allowed for each
resteurent.~r;other.eatlng':establishment. ,Menu Boards may
contain onlythe name of the menu item. The daily special sign
must be located on .a wall adjacent'tO the main customer
entrance.
"' Maximum square footage'is 3 squ~re.. feet; 'shall be located in
interior of a courtyard or adjacent tO a staircase or elevator; shall
serve to directing persons to and from parjdng areas, and upstairs
tenants,
· Muhi-tenant Signs
Permitted under 8 'canopy and parallel to the primary street; maximum
size of 6 square; minimum of 7' vertical ClearanCe shall be requlred frqm
walking grade to the bottom of the sign.
Where a building has parking or pedestrian access at the year of a
building, each business is permitted a maximum of one sign, not to
exceed 3 square feet in size.
Where a building has a courtyard or similar area that cab not be viewed
from the public right-of-way or parking ere, each business is ~rmitt~ed
· maximum of one sign, not to exceed 5% of the tot~il wall area 'of the
business. Interior facing signs shall not be counted to~vards the o~er~ll
total sign area permitted for the building.
The location of replicas of items that were commonly found;in fie turn
of the century, such as covered wagons, wagon wheels, rai!road carts,
and livestock, located out of the public right-of-way.
R:',STAFFRPT~OTSp-AI,PC 11/30/95
APPENDIX I:
D. Glossary of Sign Terms
Sign, Accessory - Any sign that, with respect to the premises on which it is erected,
advertises or indicates one or more of the following: the person occupying the premises, and
directional or parking instructions. ef the isle or. letting of the premises or any part thereof,
or menu board and daily special signs.
Sign, Building Name - Any sign which edvertise.s or indicates the name of the building. In the
event that a building name advertises one or more businesses located within said building, the
signage will be included in total square footage permitted for that business or building.
Sign, Rear Facing -' A builffing which has parking or pedestrian access at the year of a
building.
Sign, Primary Wall A sign on thc building faeo fronting on a street or parking lot frontage.
Sign, Saoondary Wall A sign Iooatod on any building face fronting on a street or parking lot
frontage other than that of thc primary wall sign.
Sign, Swinging Any sign facc which is nuapandcd at one (1) or more pointa, but ic not rigidly
and permancntly anohorod to a building, wall, peat, or othcr support structure.
Street, Primary - The street upon which the building faces or the primary business entrance
is located.
Street. Secondary - The street upon which the building faces and the secondary, accessory
or no business entrance is located.
R:~STAFFRPT~OTSP-AI.PC 11/30/95 k]b 15
FREESTANDING SIGNS
· . GILA,Pt-IICS OF VAIIIOUS SIGN ,TYPE~
· ~ ' WALL ~ UNDER CANOPY
CANOPY/AWNING ' '
pROJECTING
Hanging
WINDOW I~OENTiFICATION
City of T~me~,~la
IV - ~ Old Town Specific Plan
SECTION III
F. SPECIAL USE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
3. Sidewalk Cafes
c. Conditional Uac ~:~ Permit and Encroachment Permit Required
A sidewalk cafe may be permitted only by Conditional Usa Pcrmit
:C-,~.r~,'::.~ by the Planning Director oftor n public hearing and granted in
conformity with the requirements of this section and Chapter 9.04 of the
Development Code and thereafter obtaining an Encroachment Permit.
Both permits may be approved and issued subject to conditions.
R:~STAFFRPT~OTSp-AI.PC 11/30/95 klb 16
SECTION IV
BUILDING MATERIALS
B. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE GUIDELINES
Guideline 2 - Recommended Western Style Elements
The qualities and design elements of Western Style buildings in Old Town
include:
· vertical or horizontal wood {:.~~.~ siding;
Guideline 3 - Not Recommended Western Style Elements
The elements to avoid or minimize include:
·
Guideline 7 - Exterior Buildino Wall Materials
Exterior building walls are .encouraged to use the following materials in an
appropriate arrangement. These include:
· Board'and batten wood siding (unfinished preferred);
· m .~ .m"~i~~ of 12 inches with 1 inch by 2 inch bats
R:~STAFFRFT~OTSP-AI.~C 11/30/95 Idb 17
SECTION IV - C. SITE PLANNING GUIDELINES
2. Commercial Site Planning Guidelines
Guideline I - Front Buildin; Wall
· The front porch or arcade of any building located in the Old Town
Tourist Retail Core should be built to the front property line, otherwise
a mS~Sm~~setback of 10 feet is required by the Development
Standards.
SECTION III -
F. SPECIAL USE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
5. Outdoor Vendors
e. Issuance and Fees
Not later than 30 days after the filing of a completed application for a
vendor's license, the applicant shall be notified of the decision on the
issuance or denial of the license.
1)
Fees shall be determined by Resolution of the City Council and
shall be paid prior to issuance of a permit.
2)
Licenses to vend within the Specific Plan area shall be reviewed
and approved by the Director in conjunction with the Business
License Registration Program, Building and Safety and the
Engineering Department.
3)
There should be at least 200 ~.:~ square feet of useable or
recognizable plaza or courtyard area for each allowed outdoor
vending cart. The vending should be free of all obstructions.
within a ~b( foot pcrimctcr.
R:LqTAFFRFI~OTSP-A1.PC 11/30/95 k]~ 19
SECTION III
D. - LAND USE REGULATIONS
RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES TRC HTC OTC TRC TSO CCTS CC
R:~TAFFRP~OTSP-AI.PC 11/30/95 Mb 20
PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
RAf~CNO
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT
R:~STAFFRPTXOTSP-AI.PC 11/~0~5 kl~ 22
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE - OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, AMENDMENTS
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -
VICINITY MAP
ITEM #5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 4, 1995
Planning Application No. PA95-0114 (Plot Plan) - Tower Plaza
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA95-0114; and
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA95-
0114; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 95- approving PA95-0114
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA95-0114, subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
Layton-Belling & Associates
LPA
Renovation and expansion to an existing shopping center in
phases.
Northwest corner of Rancho California and Ynez Roads (Tower
Plaza)
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
C-1/C-P (6eneral Commercial)
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
SP (Specific Plan 180 - Rancho Highlands)
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
Not requested
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (Community Commercial)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Shopping Center
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Vacant
South: Embassy Suites Hotel
East: Temecula Town Center
West: Interstate 15
PROJECT STATISTICS
Existina Souare Footaoe
Proposed Souare FootaQe
Retail: 123,856 147,341
Theater: 7,000 32,000
Restaurant: 0 10,000
Office: 104.825 101,325
TOTAL 235,681 290,666
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA95-0114 was formally submitted to the Planning Department on
November 1,1995. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on November
20, 1995.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposal to renovate and expand portions of Tower Plaza in phases. The
project will expand the overall building area at the site by 54,985 square feet. The applicant
is proposing to relocate and expand the twin cinema into a new nine-plex theater during the
first phase of the project. All other development will occur during subsequent phases. This
will include: adding retail space in front of the new theater; razing the existing 8,000 square
foot Nurseryland site and replacing it with a retail pad of approximately 20,000 square feet;
razing a portion of the existing center, north of Vons, which will ultimately be included as part
of a 50,000 square foot new building; locating a new 3,500 retail pad adjacent to the existing
North County Bank building and converting existing retail space into ten thousand (10,000)
square feet of restaurant space. The Commission is being asked to approve the footprints of
the proposed expansion and the Design Guidelines (discussed below) for the project. All
development proposals will be Staff hsvel approvals unless the projects are deemed to be
inconsistent with the Design Guidelines or if the project square footage varies by greater than
20 percent per building footprint. If this occurs, the project will be scheduled for a Planning
Commission hearing.
None of the outlying pads (i.e., Chili's, Black Angus, Arco, etc.) will be included as part of this
project. The applicant is proposing to change the design of existing signs (freeway-oriented,
monument and directional). Since the changes are within same dimensions of the existing
signs, this will be a Staff level approval.
ANALYSIS
Site Desian
Other than the additions mentioned above (the new theater, the new 50,000square foot retail
building, the new retail pad of approximately 20,000 square feet, and the 3,500 square foot
retail area adjacent to North County Bank), the shopping center will remain the same. Ten
thousand (10,000) square feet of restaurant space will result from a conversion of the existing
retail space into restaurant space. The courtyard area (between Vons to the north and the
proposed theaters to the south) shall remain unchanged.
LandscaDina
The applicant has stated that they have concerns regarding visibility of the project, especially
from Ynez Road. The have chosen to thin existing trees along Interstate 15 and Rancho
California Road. Existing mature trees at the entry (from Ynez Road) will be retained
(reference Exhibit E-1 and E-2) and the entrances will be enhanced with new signage, and
shrubbery. Staff has conditioned the project for the applicant to retain as many of the mature
trees on site as possible during all phases of the project.
Desjan Guidelines
The applicant has not provided specific elevations for the proposed expansion because they
do not have specific tenants at this time. Instead, they have submitted design guidelines for
the center. The Design Guidelines have been included as Attachment 5 of the Staff Report.
The guidelines address massing and scale, building heights and setbacks, architectural forms
and details, colors and materials, windows and doors, signage, street furniture, mechanical
equipment and landscape entry features. Subsequent development proposals will be reviewed
for consistency with the guidelines.
Traffic/Circulation/Parkinq
The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis for Phase 1 development (the theaters). Staff
requested that the applicant prepare a analysis for the entire project; however, the applicant
has opted to submit a traffic analysis for the Phase I only. The project has been conditioned
for a subsequent traffic study to be conducted prior to the issuance of a building permit for
any additional development.
The analysis concluded that the net trade-off of an increase of 32,000square feet (1,800 seat
theater) in exchange for a reduction of 25,000 square feet of retail use (including 396 seat
theater) results in a near balance of trarffic during the critical weekday periods - i.e., the dally
total and AM peak hours produce reductions whereas the PM peak hour sees a nominal
increase. An overall increase of daily trips (1,630 ADT) does occur on Saturday, but this
occurs when surplus roadway capacity exists. The study concludes that Phase I does not
create any significant impact in terms of increased traffic.
The project proposes to re-align portions of both entries into the project. This will be
accompanied by new on-site directional signage and special paving. It is anticipated that these
changes will help improve on-site circulation.
The applicant provided an analysis based upon the existing uses and future parking demands.
Because many of the uses have off-set hours of operation and different peak demand times,
parking will not be impacted by the proposed project~ Sufficient parking will be available for
all phases of development.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Existing zoning for the site is C-1/C-P (General Commercial). Theaters, retail uses, restaurants
and offices are permitted with the approval of a plot plan pursuant to Section 18.30 of
Ordinance No. 348. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is CC (Community
Commercial). According to the Draft Development Code theaters, retail uses, restaurants and
offices would be permitted in the zone by right. 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
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 for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is a proposal to renovate and expand portions of Tower Plaza Shopping Center.
The project is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, Rancho Highlands Specific
Plan, and Ordinance No. 348. The project will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
FINDINGS
The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all applicable
requirements of state law and City ordinances. The project is a permitted use within
the General Plan Land Use' designation of CC (Community Commercial). In addition,
the project is permitted under the existing C-1/C-P (General Commercial) zoning.
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 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 18.30 (Plot Plan) of Ordinance No. 348.
The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community. An Initial Study was prepared and circulated for this project. The
Initial Study indicated that although the proposed project could have a significant
impact on the environment, the significant effects would be mitigated to a level less
than significant. This is accomplished through project design and mitigation measures
contained in the Conditions of Approval.
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 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project is located in an area
of existing and proposed commercial development.
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 (Ynez Road).
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:
'5.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 19
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 39
Exhibits - Blue Page 60
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D. Site Plan
E. Landscape Plan
Design Guidelines (Under separate cover) - Blue Page 61
R:~STAFFP, F~II4PA95.PCll/30/951ms 5
AT'FACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95.-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF ~ APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA95-0114 (PLOT PLAN) TO
INCREASE PROJECT SQUARE FOOTAGE PROM 235,681
SQUARE FEET TO 290,666 SQUARE FEET ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 21.87 ACRES LOCATED ON
NORTHWEST CORNER OF YNF_.Z AND RANCHO
C.&I.II~ORNIA ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARC~.I. NO. 921-080-026
WltRREAS, Layton-Belling & Associates filed Planning Application No. PA95-0114 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General plan and Riverside County Land Use and
Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WBI~REAS, Phnning Application No. PA95-0114 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
VVltk'REAS, the pla~nlng Commission considered planning Applicalion No. PA95-0114
on December 4, 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;
WI~RREAS, at the public hearing, upon heating 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. PA95-0114;
NOW, ~RE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIlE crrY OF
TE1VIECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. ~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
95-0114 makes the following fmdings,.'to wit:
1. The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. The pwject is a permitted use within
the General Plan Land Use designation of CC (Community Commercial). In addition, the
project is permitted under the existing C-1/C-P (General Commercial) zoning.
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.
R:\STAFFRPT~lI4PA95,1~C llBO/~5 kns 7
3. 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 18.30 (Plot Plan) of Ordin~tnce No. 348.
4. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or
general weftare of the community. An Initial Study was prepared and circulated for this project.
The Initial Study indicated that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on
the environment, the significant effects would be mitigated to a level less than significant. This
is accomplished through project design and mitigation measures cotlmine~l ill the Conditions of
Approval.
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 (Plot Plan), 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 project is
located in an area of existing and proposed commercial development.
7. 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 (Ynez Road).
8. The design of the pwject 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.
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. 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 p~,xl for this project
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not be a signfficant 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 Teraecula Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. PA95-0114 (Plot Plan) to increase project square footage
from 235,681 square feet to 290,666 square feet on a parcel containing 21.87 acres located on
the northwest comer of Ynez and Rancho California Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel No.
921-080-026 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hemto, and incorporated heroin by this reference and made
a pan hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of December, 1995.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I tlk'~RRy CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecuh at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of
December, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBIE UBNOSKE
SECRETARY
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:',STAFFRF~II4PA9S.PC 11/30/95 Ires 10
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA95-0114 (Plot Plan)
Project Description: An increase in project square footage from 235,681 square feet
to 290,666 square feet
Assessor's Parcel No.: 921-080-026
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 Planning
Application No. PA95-0114 (Plot Plan), which action is brought within the appropriate
statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4
(Section 21000 et ~eq., 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 premfses shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, and
approved with Planning Application No. PA95-0114, or as amended by these
conditions.
A. A minimum of 1,403 parking spaces shall be provided.
B. A minimum of ten (10) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
Class II bicycle racks shall be determined based upon the ultimate development
of the site and will be required with the subsequent development proposals.
4. Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit E (landscape plans), or as
amended by these conditions.
A. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Planning Manager for
all subsequent development proposals. Screening of delivery areas shall be to
the satisfaction of the Planning Manager.
B. All subsequent landscape and irrigation plans shall be accompanied by the
appropriate filing fee.
C. The applicant shall make every effort to retain mature trees on-site.
D. Fifty percent (50%) of all trees planted shall be at least 24 inch box in size.
5. All subsequent development at the site shall be consistent with the Design Guidelines
(Attachment 5), or as amended by these conditions.
6. All subsequent developments shall be approved administratively by the Planning
Manager. The Planning Manager has the authority to refer matters to the Planning
Commission, if the projects are not deemed to be consistent with the Guidelines or if
the project square footage varies by greater than 20 percent per building footprint.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
7. 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.
8. 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
9. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
10. The applicant shall record a Lot Line Adjustment for any building which traverses a
parcel line.
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.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
14. An application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Manager.
15. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
16.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
17.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free
of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and
in good working order.
18.
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
19.
20.
21.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning to
guarantee the installation of. piantings, 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
aljowed 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.
R:~STAFgRF~II4PA95.PC 11/30/95
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
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. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disable Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
25. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
26. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
27. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
28. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submi~ed for plan review.
29. 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
30. A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
31. 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.
32.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency With adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula
mylars.
33.
Prior to approval of the next phase of development, the applicant shall submit for
approval a comprehensive traffic study to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works.
Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit
34.
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.
35.
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.
36.
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
37.
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.
'38.
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 iml~acts. Any upgrading
or upsizing of downstream f~cilities, including acquisition of drainage or access
easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the
Developer.
39,
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.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
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 tothe
subject property.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
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.
An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
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.
Street improvement plans including parkway trees and street lights prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Department of Public Works shall be
required for all public.streets prior to issuance of an Encroachment Permit. Final plans
and profiles shall show the location of exiting utility facilities within the right-of-way
as directed by the Department of Public Works.
The following criteria shall be observed in the design of the improvement plans and/or
precise grading plans to be submitted to the Department of Public Works:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages
in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
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.
48.
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.
49. ·
The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed
guaranteeing the construction of the following public and private improvements in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works.
Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate
b. Storm drain facilities
c. Landscaping (slopes and parkways)
d. Sewer and domestic water systems
e. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines
f. Erosion control and slope protection
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
50.
The building pad shall be certified to have been substantially constructed in accordance
with the approved Precise Grading Plan by a registered Civil Engineer, and the Soils
Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
51.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as
established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
52.
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
R:\STAFFRIPT~II4PA95,1~C 11/30/95 Ires 17
district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee
for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
53.
Adjacent to the site, Rancho California Road is classified as a Urban Arterial Highway
with an 134 foot full width right-of-way, per the Circulation Plan of the General Plan.
There is an existing 55 foot of half width right-of-way and an additional 12 foot of
dedication is required. Therefore, an additional 12 foot of right-of-way on Rancho
California Road along the project frontage shall be offered for dedication to the City of
Temecula prior to occupancy of the first phase.
54.
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
55.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
56.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans
and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
57.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Heatth's transmittal dated November 27, 1995,
a copy of which is attached.
58.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Fire Department's transmittal dated November 30, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
59.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated November 30, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
60.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated November 30, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
11/2B/~ 13~42 I*-P.~T
..... ee3
FROM
County of Riverside
DI~PARTMIINT O!r ENVIRONMBNTAL Itl, ALTIt
CITY OF 'fEIVIECIJLA PLANNINO DEPARTMI~T
ATFN: MMlhewFagun
DAB: November 27, 1~5
C~44C1t HARRISON, Envlnmmemal Henlib Specialist Ill
FINAL CONDI'I1ONS OF APPROVAl, FOR PLOT PLAN NO, PAg5~0114
1, Dcpnrtngm of Enviwnmenlal Health has scvlcv~l tl~ Final Conditions d Approval for Plo~
Plan No. PAg5-0114 and has im obj~'tlons. PRIOR TO PLAN CHEC~ SUDMIt-i-AL, the
follo~ng arc tzquircd:
a) "WIll-serve' I~ from the appmprlatc water and k-'9~rln8 dislrlis.
b) !fthcr~me tobe nnyfood eslabilsluncnls, lhree complclc sets ofplsns f~emch food
establishment will be Imbmlltcd including s fixmac sc. dSedule, u finish schedule and ·
plumbing schedule in mdu to ensure compliance wifi~thc California Uniform Retail
Food Facilities Law 2,
c) If there a~ !o bc any I~.-nfilous matcT|als, a clearance letter from the Deportment of
F. nviromnenlal Health l-htznrdous Malefinis Mmmlpnm~t Branch 058-5055) will b~
required lndicnting lira| the project has bci5 elcnrcd for:
+ UnderSround slorap tanks, Ordlnnnec # 617,3,
· F~mu~lousWam. cG~crmorScrv.lc~%Ordinance#61S.2.
+ Hazardous Waste Dtsclosm~ (in nccoxzlancm ~ Ordinance # 651.1),
4, Whale rcr]uclion mmnagcmcnt.
CH:dr
(~09) 28S-89~0
Shelter, Hazardous Matmlals Branch
{909) 69~-6444 · Fax {909) 694-.
November 30, 1995
TO:
ATIN:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTMtKNT
MATI'HEV~ FAGAN
PA95-0114
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referencext plot plan, the Fire
Depatlment recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance wiffi
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The fire Department is required to set a minimum fn~ flow for the remodel or
construction of all commercial building using the procedures established in Ordinance
546. A fire flow of 3500 GPM for a 3 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure must be 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"), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the
building as measumt along approved vehicular travelways. TI~ r~luired 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 DepzaLment for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, eontnlnlng a Fi~
Depa~Un~nt 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 t6 the Fire Department for signature.
Prior to the issuance of bui~cting permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fire protection impacts.
Prior to the issuanc~ of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Teanecula.
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE IVIET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
Im~t~ll a complete fn~ sprlnlder system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire
department connection shnH be localexl to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a mlnlm~n of 25 feet from tho building(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically fire sp~nklod must be included on the ti~e page of the building
plans.
7. Fi~ Alnrm requi~ments wffi depend on occupancy classification/use of each bui~aln~.
Tn~t211 a supervised wateffiow monitoring tim nl~rm system. Plans sh~11 be submitted
to the Fire Department. for approval prior to installation.
9 Plex Theater - The building shall be equipped with a manual and automatic fire .l.rm
system with visual devices, prerecorded voice evacuation message and monitored to a
U.L. approved remote receiving station.
10. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of k~y or special knowledge or effort.
11.
lnStM1 p~nlc hardwal~ 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.
Occupancy separation w.ll~ will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, Section
503.
13.
Inst~11pormbleflmexfingnisherswithaminimumra~ngof2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
14.
It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify
it as an "H' occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code.
15.
Display Boards: Display boards required for apartments, commercial complexes,
condominiums, RV parks and mobile home parks will be as follows. Each complex
shall have an illumlnnted diagrnmmatic r~resentation of the actual layout which shows
the name of the complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant
locations within the compleX. These ~ries sh:~ll be a mlnimll~l 4'X4' in dimension
and located next to the madway'iiccess.
16. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the sleet directly in line with
fire hydrant.
17. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant Shnll prel)al~ and submit to the
Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fu~ lanes with appropriate
lane painting and or signs.
18.
Sla~et address sh~ll be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
strut side of the buildinK with a contrasting background.
19.
All buildings Shall be constzucted with fire r~tarrhnt roofing materials as described in
The Uniform lluilding COde. Any wood shingles or shakes shall be a Class "B" rating
and Shnll be approved by the ~m d~parUnent prior to instalh~on.
20.
Applicant/developer sh~ll be responsible to provide or show there exists conditions set
fozth by the Fire D~pa~tment.
21.
Final conditions will be addressed when building phn~ are reviewed in the Building and
22, Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All questions regarclin~ the meaning of these conditions shall be ref~lTecl to the Fil~ Department
phnnlng and engineering section (909)694-6439.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Db-paztment Planner
by~da~
Laura Cabral
Fi~ Safety Specialist
I
lO:/,Bam -- From ,71~,6949175' -- Page 2~
;11-80-95; 10:42;
Novsmtgr 30, 1995
RANCHO WA'II~K'4
9096B46477;# 2/3
Mr. Matthew Fagan, A~slstant Planner
City of Tcmecula
Planring Department ~
43174 Business Park Drive'
Temecula, CA 92590-360g
SUBJECT: Water Ava~ability
Planning Application No. 95-0114 (Tower Plaza)
Dear Mr. Fagan:
Please b~ advised that the above-r~f~renced property is located within
boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service,
therefore, would be available upon completion of financial anan~ments
between RCWD and the prol~rty owner.
Water avafiability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an
Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, ff any, m RCWD.
ff you have any questions, :please contact Janice Johnson.
Sincerely,
RANCHO C~T.rFORNTA WATER DISTRICT
Laurie Wffiiams
Engine, nring Se~vi~e.s Manager
Brannon, Dr,,dopment Engineering Ma~aF, r
qThursday November 30, 1995 10:51am -- From ,9096581803' -- Page 2~
SENT BY:E II iV D ;11-30-95 ;11:ABAli; 9096581803'* 90989484';~';# 2
Eastern Municipal Water District
Matthew Fagan
City cf Tem&cula
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula# C!lifornia 92590
SUBJECT: T~wer Plaza Center (Planning Appllcalios No. 9~-0114) - Agunc7 Case
Dear Mr. Fagan:
We have reviewed materials transmitted by your office describing
renova :ion and' expansion to an existing shopping cen~er in phases.
First phase.' includes a renovation to ~he exisitng theater.
Subsequent ~hsses include expansion and renovation to existing
retail Brea~ ~he subject project located at the northwest comer
of the ~nte~aeCtion of Rancho California and Ynez Roads is located
within EMWDtS eservice area for sanitary sewer service. Domestic
water Berv/cei shall be provided by Razlcho California Water
District.
The ovmer must make a request for service or amend any current
sewer serv~ce~ agreement with our District's Customer Service
Department !before occupancy. Please contact our District's
Customer Servi~e Department at (909} 766-1822 for sewer service.
It must be Understood ,that t_he available capacities of the
Distrlct's ~n~tary sewer syst~m~ are continually cheng~ng due ~o
the occurrence. of development within the District and programs of
system5 ~m~to~emen=. As such, the provision of service will be
based on the ;timing of the subject project, the status of the
District's l~e, rmit to operate, and the service agre-m-nt between the
Districot an~ the owner of the subject project.
;Thursday Nove~i~er 30, 199~ 10:51m -- From '9096581803' -- Page 3t
SENT BY:E N W D ;11-30-g5 ;11:4~AN ~ 90985818034 90969484~;# 3
:lv[atthew
PA95-0114
Nov~znbcr 30, I~S
]P~e 2
Should you have any questions regarding these cemm=-ts, please feel
free ~o con~ac= =his office at 1909) 766-1810, ext. 4467.
Sincez ely,;
EaSTErN ~A~CIPAL WATER DISTR=CT
Warren A. B&ck, P.E.
Associate E.~.gineer IZ
Customer Se...rvice Department
WAB/
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 2
INn'L4~L STUDY
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
10.
Project Title: Planning Application No. PA95-0114 (Plot Plan)
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula
43714 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Contact Person and Phone Number: Matthew Fagan (909) 694-6400
Project Location: Northwest corner of Rancho California and Ynez Roads (Tower Plaza)
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mr. David Thomas, Principal
Layton-Belling & Associates
4220 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 110
Newport Beach, California 92660
General Plan Designation: CC (Community Commercial)
Zoning: C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
Description of Project: Renovation and expansion to an existing shopping center in phases.
First phase includes a renovation to the existing theater. Subsequent phases include
expansion and renovation to existing retail area.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Interstate 15 is to the west of the project, the Embassy
Suites Hotel is to the south, Temecula Town Center shopping Center is to the east, and the
land to the north of the project is vacant.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department,
Riverside County Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water
District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern
California Edison Company, General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
[]
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[]
Ix]
[1
1}
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant 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 an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on' attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
R:\STAFFRlrI~II4PAg$,PC 11130/95 Ires 21
[]
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 all potentially significant effects
(a) have been analyzed adequately in a earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signature
Date
Printed Name
For
R:~STAF]~RFr',I14PA9~.PC 11/30/95
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Issues and Supporting informationiS0urceS
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (1, F2-1, p. 2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( )
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (1, F2-1, p. 2-17)
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? (1, F5-4, p. 5-
17)
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including low-
income or minority community)? ( )
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( )
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( )
c. Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing? (1, F2-1, p, 2-17)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture? ( )
b. Seismic ground shaking? ( ) .~
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
( )
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
e. Landslides or mudflows? ( )
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
( )
Pole~ielly b
:Signhrmartt Mitigation
Impact IIl~orpomed
X
X
X
Lass Than
Signffioam: No
ImpaGt~ ::~:~: E lmp~cic
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and: SUpporting: information' ~Soumes
g. Subsidence of the land? { )
h. Expansive soils7 ( )
i. Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and mount of surface
runoff7 ( )
b. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? ( )
c. Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
( )
d, Changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body7 ( )
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( )
f. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( )
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater7 ( )
h. Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies7 ( )
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:"
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
violation? ( )
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( )
! S~Ontfi~nt
Potentially tJtdes$ Le=8 Than
SlgnHtc4m ~i :: MIt~atlon ; S~nificant
:impact: E ~ ElncOq}Oflted: Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\$TAFFRPT~II4PA95,PC 11/30/95 hn. 24
Issues and SUpporting: :InformatiOn: :Sources
d. Create objectionable odors? ( )
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
( )
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersection or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( )
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( )
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-
site? ( )
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ( )
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( )
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( )
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a, Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (
b. Locally designated species {e;g. heritage
trees)? ()
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?( )
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? ( )
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors7 {
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES,
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( )
Signlfic, mnt :' Mlttgltlon Slgnific4nt
X
X
Impa~t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State?
( )
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemica! or
radiation)? ( )
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
( )
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( )
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( )
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( )
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels? ( )
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
( )
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection? ( )
b. Police protection? ( )
c. Schools? ( )
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ( )
e. Other governmental services? ( )
X
X
X
X
X
X
impa~t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:~TAI~FP, lr~II4PA9~.PC 11/30/95
Issues and Supportlng;!lnformationSources
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems
or supplies, or substantial alterations
to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas7 ( )
b, Communications systems? ( )
c. Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ( )
d. Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e. Storm water drainage? ( )
f. Solid waste disposal? ( )
g. Local or regional water supplies? ( )
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( )
b, Have a demonstrable 'negative aesthetic
effect? ( )
c. Create light or glare? ( )
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources? (2, F55,
p.280)
b. Disturb archaeological resources? (2, F56, p.
283)
c. Affect historical resources? (2, p. 281)
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( )
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area7 ( )
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
( )
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:~STAFFRPT~II4PA95.1~C 11/~0/95 Inn 27
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
(
Signifr, an/: Mit~e~n
X
R:',STA~II4PA95.PC 11/30/95
Issues and Supporting:i~lnformation :Sources
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade X
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number of restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve X
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts that area X
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (" Cumulatively considerable"
means that eh incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects).
d. Does the project have environmental effects X
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more affects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets.
a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
R:XSTAFicrP, PTXlI4PA95.PC 11/30/95 has 29
SOURCE LI,Vr
1 - City of Temecula General Plan
2 - City of Teme~ula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Planning
1.b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation
of CC (Community Commercial). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in
the Environmental Impact Pepon for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City
commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their
particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all
agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project
and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the projec~ relates to their
specific environmental plans or polices. Because the project is in-fill, there will be limited, if any
environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
1 .e. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-
income or minority community). The project is in-fill commercial development within an existing
commercial center. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minority
community) at this site. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Population and Housing
2.a. The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is in-
fill commercial development wlthin an existing commercial center and is consistent with the City's General
Plan Land Use Designation of Community Commercial. The project is not a significant contributor to
population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No
significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
2.b. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is in-fill
commercial development within an existing commercial center. While the project may cause people to
relocate to the Temecula area, the project will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant
effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Geologic Problems
3.a--c
g,h. The project may have a significant impact on people involving fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic
ground failure (including liquefaction), subsidence of the land and expansive soils. The project is located
adjacent to 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 also located in a liquefaction hazard
area and an area of potential subsidence as identified on Figure 7 of Final Environmental Impact for the City
of Temecula General Plan. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building
construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports
are required as part of the application submiual and will be used to determine appropriate conditions of
approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will
serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure
(including liquefaction), subsidence of the land and expansive soils.
R:\$TAFFRFrXll4PAg$.PC 11/30/95
3.d. The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in
an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects ere anticipated as a result of this
project.
3.e. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact for the City
of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or
proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.f. Theproject will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography, grading or fill.
Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of
the project and the. project may result in changes in siltslion, 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. The project will result in a change in
the site topography and ground surface relief features. Grading will be necessary for the realization of this
project. Since the mount 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. Potential
unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and
proper compaction of the soils. No impure are foreseen as a result of this project.
3.i. The project will not impact unique geologic or physical futures. No unique geologic features or physical
features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Water
4.a. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and mount of surface
runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings,
accompanying herdscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, any
potential impacts can be 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 impure ere
anticipated as a result of this project.
4.b. The project has the potentially significant impact of exposing people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding. The project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula
General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency
response system and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate service provision as the
City develops. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.c. The project may have a potentially significant effect on discherges 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 Discherge Elimination System CN'PDES) permit
from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of
Intent has been ~ed 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.
4.d. 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 impure ere anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:~TAFFRPT~l14PA95.1sC IlF~0/gS h~ 32
4.e. The project will have a less than significant impagt to changes in currents, or to the course or direction of
water movements. The project site is not located adjacent to either marine or fresh water sources or areas
where there is concentrated currents or water movements. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
4.f-h.
The project will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addkions or
withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability. 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. Further, the
project will not result in an altered direction or rate of flow of groundwaters or in impacts to groundwater
quality. Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground
waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.i. Theprojectwil~n~tresu~tinasubstantialreducti~nintheam~unt~fgr~undwaterwater~therwiseavai~ab~e
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
completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Air Ouali~
5.a. The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. Air Quality analysis in the General Plan's
Environmental Impact Report shows no significant impact to air quality at buildout of the City. The analysis
was cenductecl with the assumption that land uses would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Designations. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.b. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no sensitive receptors in proximity
to the project.
5.c. The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The
limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.d. The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will
be of short duration and are not considered significant.
Transportation/Circulation
6.a. The project will result in an increase in vehicle trips and may add to traffic congestion. A traffic analysis
prepared for Phase 1 of development concludes that the net trade-off of an increase of 32,000 square feet
(1,800 seat theater) in exchange for a reduction of 25,000 square feet of retail use (including 396 seat
theater) results in a near balance of traffic during the critical weekday periods - i.e., the daily total and AM
peak hours produce reductions whereas the PM peak hour sees a nominal increase. An overall increase of
dally trips (1,630 ADT) does occur on Saturday, but this occurs when surplus roadway capacity exists. The
study concludes that Phase 1 does not ereate any significant impact in terms of increased traffic. The project
has bean conditioned for a subsequent traffic study to be conducted prior to the issuance of a building permit
for any additional development. It is anticipated that any impacts can be mitigated to a level less than
significant.
6.b. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is in-fdl within an existing
center. Further, the project is designed to 'current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety
from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.c. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is in-fill
within an existing center. Further, the project is designed to current City standards and has adequate
emergency access. The project does not provide access to nearby uses, therefore, it will not impact access
to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.d. The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The applicant has completed a parking needs
analysis based upon the uses proposed by this project. Based upon this analysis, there will be sufficient on-
site parking spaces provided. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
6.e. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. A sidewalk has been provided
on site, as well as from Ynez Road to the center. Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included
as part of the proje~. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.f. The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Currently,
Riverside Transit Agency Route 23 travels through the intersection of Ynez and Rancho California Roads,
in proximity to the project site. In addition, bicycle racks are included at the existing project site and will
be required as a condition of approval from any subsequent development entiflements of the site. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.g. The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently in the
immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Biological Resources
7. a. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including,
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously graded and
developed. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered
species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any
wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier
to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.b. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are
protected in the Old Town Temecuta Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City.
Sinco this projea is not located in Old .Town, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
7.c. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.d. The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. The project site has been previously graded and
there are no wetlands at the site. A lake (not natural) exists at the project site; however, it will not be
disturbed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~TAFFRFFXII4PAg$.PC 11/30/95
7.e. The project will not result in an impact to wildlifo dispersal or migration corridors. No wildlife exists on
site and the project site does not serve as part of n migration corridor. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Energy and Mineral Resources
8.a. The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be
reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check
stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8 .b . The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful
and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the
depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (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.
8.c. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Hazards
9.a. The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of
an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use,
storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
9.b. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The
subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take
access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency
evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.c. The projea will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The projea will
be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be
issued unless the projea is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
9.d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No bealth hazards are
known to be within proximity of the pro~eet. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
9.e. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with timable brush, grass, or trees.
The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Noise
lO.a.
The proposal will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and any
development of the land would result in increases tO noise levels during construction phases as well as
increases to noise in the area over the long run. The project site is located within proximity to
Interstate 15 and is within a Commercial/Industrial corridor. There are no sensitive receptors located
in the area. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short
or long run.
lO.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels and vibrations during the
development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in
the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage
from steady 8-hour exposure. This sourca 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.
Public Services
ll.a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact 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.
ll.c.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school
facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate to the City of Temecula
and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
ll.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including
roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the
City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance
of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered
significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses.
ll.e.
The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Utilities and Service Systems
12.a.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or
natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered to the site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
12.b.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to
communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
12.c.
The project will have a less than significant effect in the need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities.
R:\STAFFRPT/II4PAgI.PC 11/30/9f l~s 36
12.d.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary
sewer systems or septic tnnk.~. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing
systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report auEIR) for the City's General Plan states: "beth
EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services
areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not
significantly impact wastewater services Co. 40)." Since the projea is consistent with the City's General
Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site
or prox'unate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.e.
The proposal will result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to sWnn water
drainage. The project is in-fill, and will need to provide additional on-site drainage systems. The
drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie inw the existing
system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.f.
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.
12.g.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or
regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
Aesthetics
13.a.
The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is in-fill within an existing
center and is not located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any
designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b.
The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Matere trees on the site are slated
for removal as a result of this project. While the trees that are proposed to be removed are common
to the area, the project site still provides a unique setfinE for the Temecula area. The applicant has
preserved some trees. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant to preserve rnsny more of the
existing trees. In addition, design guidelines will be approved for the project which will incorporate
components of the existing center inW the new design. This will assure that the project will be
aesthetically compatible and complementary to the existing development. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
13.c.
The projea will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The projea will preduea
and result in light/glare as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and
glare has the potential to impact the 'Mount Palomar ObservaWry. 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.
Cultural Resources
14.d.
The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values. None exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
14,e.
The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No
religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
ReCreation
15.a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to
relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in impacts or in an increase in demand
for neighborhood or regions] parks or other recreations] facilities. The same is true for the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
R:~TAFFR/rfHI4PAg$.!~C 11/30/95
A'fTACHMENT 3
1VIIT~GATION MONITORING PROGRAM
< ~
.<
< ~ ~ <
~ z z ~
< < < < _<
A'FI'ACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0114 PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT - A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 4, 1995
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
RII
"1
/
R-A -S
( 8o)
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - C-1/C-P GENERAL COMMERCIAL
//
P <'.> BP
BP
BP
CC
"X /j~.>~ p~,,s,
<,.'_x,,
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - CC - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
CASE NO. - PA95-0114
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 4, 1995
R:LqTAFFRPT~II4PA95.PC 11r21/~5 Ires
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0114 PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT - D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 4, 1995
SITE PLAN
R:XSTAFFRFI~II4PA95.PC 11/21/95
CITY OF TEMECULA
INTERSTATE 15 HIGHWAY
CASE NO. - PA95-0114 PLOT PLAN
EXHIBIT - E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 4, 1995
LANDSCAPE PLAN
R:~TAFFRFrXlI4PA95.1~C 11/21/95 Ires
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 5
DESIGN GUIDELINES
(UNDER SEPARATE COVER)
R:\STAFFRPTNII4PA95.PC 11/30/95 Ires 61
ITEM #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 4, 1995
Planning Application No. PA95-0112 (Plot Plan) - Oscars on the Pond
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
1. ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA95-0112; and
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA95-
0112; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 95- approving PA95-0112
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA95-0112subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Oscar and John Sarkisian
REPRESENTATIVE:
Russell Rumansoff
.PROPOSAL:
A 9,934 square foot restaurant, utilizing an existing 3,792.foot
building and adding 6,142 square feet
LOCATION:
South of Rancho California Road, east of the Pond, approximately
500 feet east of the intersection of Rancho California and Ynez
Roads
EXISTING ZONING:
SP 180 (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-1/C-P (General Commercial)
SP 180 (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan)
R:3-4,000 (General Residential)
SP 180 (Rancho Highlands Specific Plan)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
R:',STA]~P, PT~112PA95.1~C 11/30/95 hns
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Professional Office
EXISTING LAND USE:
Conference Center/Banquet Facility
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Temecula Town Center
Vacant
Hope Lutheran Church
Embassy Suites Hotel
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area: 1.88 acres
Total Site Area: 81,851 square feet
Building Area: 9,934 square feet(12%)
Landscape Area: 31,087 square feet (50%)
Paved Area: 40,830 square feet (38%)
Parking Required: 86 spaces
Parking Provided: 106 spaces
Building Height: 20 feet (27 feet to the top of the tower)
BACKGROUND
Planning Application No. PA95-0112 was formally submitted to the Planning Department on
October 31, 1995. Prior to that date, Staff held several meetings with the applicant to
discuss various elements of the project. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting
was held on November 8, 1995.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposal to expand an existing 3,792 square foot conference center/banquet
facility into a 9,934square foot restaurant. Hours of operation for the restaurant will be from
10:00 am to 10:30 pm, seven days a week. It is anticipated that fifty percent (50%) o~ the
restaurant business is take-out and fifty percent (50%) is dine in. There will be seating for
256 people (216 interior and 40 patio).
ANALYSIS
Site Desien
The new building will be 6,142 square feet larger than the existing building. Existing parking
will remain, with parking added adjacent to the building and to the east of the existing parking
lot. The dining area will be oriented to the west, with views toward the pond. Outside patio
dining will be on the west side of the building.
R:'~TAFFRF'Ill12PA95.PC 11/30/95 bus 2
LandscaDina
Staff has concerns how the aesthetics of the site will change with the removal of mature
trees. The project is located at a prominent corner in the City of Temecula. Changes will be
visible primarily to motorists eastbound on Rancho California Road and the patrons of the park.
The existing trees provide a unique setting to the existing building.
With the expansion, twenty-one trees are slated for removal. These trees include:
Eucalyptus, Sycamore, Honey Locust, an Olive and a Pine. Three larger trees (Olive,
Sycamore and Pine) will be removed from the western elevation and have the greatest
potential for aesthetic impacts. Options recommended by Staff included: reconfiguration of
the building to save additional trees; or planting five (5) trees in tree wells or in large planter
boxes on the west portion of the patio. These options were not incorporated into the plan,
because it was felt that the trees would interfere with the patio dining area.
The remainder of the trees will be removed from other elevations and are not as visually
prominent as the west facing elevation. Many of the trees are the Eucalyptus variety and are
in need of immediate maintenance (pruning, thinning).
Trees at the Rancho California Road entry will not be removed. Thirty-three (33) trees have
been preserved on site, as the applicant has chosen to design the parking around them. The
landscape plan calls for planting twenty-nine (29) additional trees. This will result in thirty-
eight percent (38%) of the site to be in landscaping and/or open space. This exceeds the
minimum landscaping standard contained in the Rancho Highlands Specific Plan and the Draft
Development Code.
initially, the removal of the trees will present a visual impact to the existing site. The new
building will be approximately three times larger than the existing building. It is anticipated
that over time, the remaining mature trees and the proposed additional trees will create an
aesthetically pleasing site that will complement the park and the prominent intersection that
the restaurant occupies.
Architecture
The building is one story and will be stucco. Plaster column features will be used on all
elevations. The roof will be tile and will be concrete. Canvas awnings will be used, with the
majority of them being on the west elevation. Window frames will be aluminum.
Parkina and Traffic
A condition of approval has been placed on the project for the applicant to enter into a
reciprocal parking/access agreement with the City of Temecula upon completion of the park
improvements to allow joint use of the parking and access.
The project will have less than five (5) percent increase to the nearest intersection (Rancho
California and Ynez Roads) during the PM peak travel hour. The restaurant will not be open
for breakfast; therefore it is anticipated that the project will not impact the AM peak travel.
Coordination with the Temecula Duck Pond Park Master Plan
This project is being coordinated with the Master Plan for the Temecula Duck Pond Park. The
Master Plan is in the early stage of development (one meeting has been held).
Representatives from Oscars and Planning Department Staff are on the Temecula Duck Pond
Master Plan Committee and have and will be monitoring the development of the Park Plan to
assure that there will be coordination between the two projects. Parking, circulation and
pedestrian access to the park site are the most paramount issues at this time between the two
projects. It is anticipated that ultimate improvements to the park will include additional parking
spaces and the alignment of the western driveway (now closed) with Tierra Vista Road at
Ynez Road. The Capital Improvement Program slates park improvements for Fiscal Year 1995-
96; however, based upon discussions with Temecula Community Services Department Staff,
these improvements are likely to occur during the early part of Fiscal Year 1996-1997.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Existing zoning for the site is Specific Plan (SP 180 - Rancho Highlands). Restaurants are
permitted with the approval of a plot plan pursuant to Section 18.30 of Ordinance No. 348.
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Professional Office (O). The project as
proposed is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 and the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
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 for the project. Any potentially significant impacts will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is a proposal for a restaurant on the site of an existing conference/banquet facility.
Staff has concerns about the removal of twenty-one (21) existing trees on the site. The
applicant retained many mature trees and will be planting additional trees. The project is
consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan, Rancho Highlands Specific Plan, and
Ordinance No. 348. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
FINDINGS
The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all applicable
requirements of state law and City ordinances. The project is a permitted use within
the General Plan Land Use designation of Professional Office (O). In addition, the
project is permitted under the existing Specific Plan (SP 180) zoning.
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 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 18.30 (Plot Plan) of Ordinance No. 348.
The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of
the community. An Initial Study was prepared and circulated for this project. The
Initial Study indicated that although the proposed project could have a significant
impact on the environment, the significant effects would be mitigated to a level less
than significant. This is accomplished through project design and mitigation measures
contained in the Conditions of Approval.
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 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project is located in an area
of existing and proposed commercial development.
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 (Rancho California Road) and will ultimately have access from Ynez Road upon the
completion of the Master Plan for the Pond Park.
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.
10.
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
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 10
Initial Study - Blue Page 19
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 39
Exhibits - Blue Page 60
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
D Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Landscape Plan
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
ATrACtIMRNT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 95-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
~ CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA95-01Ll TO CONSTRUCT A 9,934
SQUARE FOOT -RESTAURANT ON A PARCel,
CONTAINING 1.88 ACRES LOCATED SOUTH OF
RANCHO CAtXPORNIA ROAD, APPROXIM_ATR. I.Y ~00
FR.I~.T EAST OF TF[R. INTERSECTION OF RANCHO
CAT.WORNIA AND YNEZ ROADS AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR' S PARCRt. NO. 9~.~. 3304)13
WI~REAS, Oscar and John Sarkisian fled Planning Application No. PA95-0112 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;
WIP~.REAS, Planning Application No. PA95-0112 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
Vv'I~EREAS, the planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA95-0112
on December 4, 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;
WIP~REAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts
relating to Planning Application No. PA95-0112;
NOW, THEREFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TE1VIECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above' recitations are true and correct.
Section 2. Findings. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA95-0112 makes the following findings, to wit:
1. The proposed use conforms to all General Plan requirements and with all
applicable requixements of state hw and City ordinances. The pwject is a permitted use within
the General Plan Land Use designation of Professional Office (O). In addition, the prejea is
permitted under the existing Specific Plan (SP 180) zoning.
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.
3. 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 18.30(Plot Plan) of Ordinance No. 348.
4. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safely or
general weffare of the community. An hitial Study was pmpared and eireulatod for this project.
The Initial Study indicated that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on
the environment, the significant effects would be mitigated to a level less than significant. This
is accomplished through project design and mitigation measures contained in the Conditions of
Approval.
5. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
size and shape of the lot confignmtion, access, and intensity of use, because the proposed
phnning application [Plot Plan), 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 project is
located in an area of existing and pwposed commercial development.
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 (Rancho California Road) and will ultimately have access from Ynez Road upon the
completion of the Master Plan for the Pond Park.
8. The design of the project and the type of impwvements are such that they
are not in conffict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed
project.
9. Said findings are supported by maps, exhibits and enviromental
documents associated with these applications and herein incoxporated by reference.
C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA95-0112 [Plot
Plan) as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, end is compatible
with the present and future development of the surrounding property.
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 wffi 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 granWxl.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecuh Planning Commission hereby
approves Planning Application No. PA95-0112 to construct a 9,934 square foot restaurant on
a parcel containing 1.88 acres located south of Rancho California Road, approximately 500 feet
east of the intersection of Rancho California and Ynez Roads and known as Assessor's Parcel
No. 944-330-013 subject to the following conditions:
R:\STAFPR-Is~II2PAgf.PC 11130/95 kas 8
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made
a pan hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, A_PPROVED AND ADOFrED this 4th day of December, 1995.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HRREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of
Def,~mber, 1995 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBIE UBNOSKE
SECRgrARY
R:\STA~I12pAg$.I~ 11/30/95
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA95-0112- Plot Plan
Project Description: A 9,934 square foot restaurant, utilizing an existing 3,792 foot
building and adding 6,142 square feet
Assessor's Parcel No.: 944-330-013
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 Planning
Application No. PA95-0112 (Plot Plan) which action is brought within the appropriate
statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4
(Section 21000 _et sea., 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 apl~roval.
The development of the premisi~s shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, approved
with Planning Application No. PA95-0112, or as amended by these conditions.
A. One hundred eight (108) parking spaces shall be provided.
B. Three (3) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
C. Three (3) Class II bicycle racks shall be provided.
4. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these
conditions.
Building colors shall conform substantially with Exhibit F (color elevations), or as
amended by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit G, or as amended
by these conditions (color and material board).
Material
Concrete tile roof
Plaster walls
Window glazing
Canvas awnings
Accent trim
Aluminum storefront
Aluminum storefront doors and columns
Color
Charcoal
La Habra Crystal White
Solar Grey
Abbott Industries #8602 - Sunburst Yellow
Frazee #4485Y (LH) - Rising Sun
Bronze aluminum
Clear aluminum
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibit H (landscape plans), or as
amended by these conditions.
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. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid.
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:\STAFFR~vI~II2PA95.1sC 11/30/95
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
14. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
15.
The applicant shall record a Lot Line Adjustment to acquire adjust the boundary
between the park and the proposed restaurant.
16. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view.
17.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation,
and shading plans.
18.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free
of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and
in good working order.
19.
Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently
affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal,
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than
70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space
at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space
finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space
finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous
place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22
inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles 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.
20.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning 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.
21.
All of the foregoing conditions shal~ be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
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:~TA~ll2PAgLPC 11130/95 Im~ 13
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
23.
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).
24.
Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
25.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work,
26,
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disable Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
27.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
28.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
29. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
30.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
31.
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
32.
A Grading Permit for precise grading, including all onsite flat work and improvements,
shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any
construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way.
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.
34.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements
contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula
mylars.
Prior to 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.
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
37,
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.
38.
39.
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. Continued drainage across existing City property substantially shown on
the tentative site plan is hereby approved with this Planning Application.
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.
40.
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, :
41.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
42.
An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
43.
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.
44.
Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City
Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Worlds. The following
design criteria shall be observed:
Flowline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
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.
d. Sewer and domestic water systems shall be shown.
e. Erosion control and slope protection shall be shown.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
45.
The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer to have been
substantially constructed in accordance with the approved Precise Grading Plan and the
Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site
conditions.
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.
R:'~TAFFP, PT~I12PA95.PC 11/30/95 Ires 16
Prior to Issuance of e Certificate of Occupancy
48.
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
49.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
50.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans
and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
51.
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.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
52.
All landscaping and interior open space areas shall be maintained by the property
owner.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
53. The applicant shall coordinate with the Community Services Department to separate
the water and electric service meters from the adjacent City park.
54.
The applicant shall coordinate with the Community Services Department Maintenance
Superintendent to verify the location of any drainage improvements, walls, or other
structures that may impact the park property. Any drainage improvements that direct
water onto the park shall' require the written approval of the Community Services
Department Maintenance Superintendent.
55. The applicant shall coordinate with the Community Services Department to determine '
the proposed boundary of a lot line adjustment between the project site and the park
property.
Prior to the Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
56.
The separation of water and electric services from the adjacent City park property shall
be completed.
57. The lot line adjustment shall be reviewed and approved by Staff.
R:\STAFFRPT~II2PA95.PC 11130/95 Ires 17
58. An agreement shall be entered into between the applicant and the City to provide for
restaurant and park site parking, and for the use of the flag poles. No corporate
identification can be flown from the flag poles.
59. Any damages resulting from the restaurant construction to the adjacent park
landscaping and irrigation shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Community
Services Department Maintenance Superintendent.
OTHER AGENCIES
60. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Health Department's transmittal dated November 8, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
61. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Fire Department's transmittal dated November 30, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
62. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated November 30, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
63, The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal
Water District's transmittal dated November 30, 1995, a copy of which is attached.
R:~STAPPRFI~II2PA9~.I~C 11/30/95 hns 18
TO:
FROM:
RE:
C nty of Riverside
RECEIVED
NOV 16 1995
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE: November 8, 1995
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ATTN: MatthewFagan
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. PA95-0112 (FAST TRACK)
The Depaxhuent of Environmental Health has reviewed the Substantial Conform mace No.
PA95-0112 (Fast Track) mad has no objections. Sanitary sewer and water services may
be available in this area.
PRIOR TO ANY PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, for health clearance, the following
items are required:
a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water agency.
Three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted,
including a fixture schedule, a finish schedule, mad a plumbing schedule in order to
ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food facilities Law. For
specific reference, please contact Food Facility Plan examiners at (909) 358-5172.
c) A clearance letter from the Hazardous 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) HaTardons Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.3.
iii)
Emergency Response Plans Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance #
651.2.).
iv) Waste reduction managemere.
3. Waste Regulation Branch (Waste Collection/LEA).
GD:dr
(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 clearmace.
+
ss r 90
{909] 694~444 · Fax (909} 694-1'
November 30, 1995
TO:
PLANNING DEPART1VIENT
IvIA'rI'ttEW FAGAN
PA95-0112
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 sumdards:
The fire 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 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"x2-2 1/2") fire hydrant,
located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as
measured along vehicular travelways.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for
review. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire
Depzuunent 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 t~ the Fire Department for signature.
The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the
job site.
Prior to the issuance of bullcling permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fire protection impacts,
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicantJdeveloper shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PKIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Install a complete fn'e sprinkler system in all buffclings. The post indicator valve and fire
depa~unent connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building
will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the title page of the building
plans.
Install a supervised waterfl0w monitoring fn-e alarm system. Plans shall be submitted
to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation.
Install a hood duct fire extinguishing system. Contact a certified fLm protection company
for proper placement. Plans must be approved by the Fire Department prior to
installation.
Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code.
Low level exit signs shall also be provided, where exit signs are required by section
3314(a).
Install portable f~re extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a cerdfied
extinguisher company for proper placement.
Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted in private streets and driveways to indicate location
of fire hydrants. They shall be mounted in the middle of the street direcdy 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.
Temporary turnaround shall be clearly designated and stripped to keep clear at all times.
Street address shall be posted, in a visible location, minimum 12 inches in height, on the
street side of the building with..a contrasting background.
All buildings shall be constructed with fn'e retlrrtant 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 fn'e department prior to inStallatiOn.
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 ar~ reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
19. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All questions regarding the me~nlng of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department
planning and engineering section (909)694-6439.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
Laun Cabral
Fire Safety Specialist
iThursday slove~r~er 501 1995 lO:~,Bsm -- From 171z,69z,9175' -- Page
S}~/T BY:~ ;ll-3O-~; 10:43; ~0 WA~
November 30, 1995
Mr. Matthew Fagan, Assistant Planner
City of Tcmecula.
pl~tnnlng Depm tment
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 97.590-3606
SUBJECT: Water Availability
Planning Application No. 95-0112 (Oscar's)
Dear Mr. Yagan:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is loented wjmln the
houndarles of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water $ervicc,
therefore, would be available upon completion of finanelal arrangements
between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would be contingent upon thc property owner signthE an
Agency Agreement which as,signs water management fights, if any, to RCWD.
ff you have any questions, please contact Janice Johnson.
Sincerely,
RANClIO CALIFORNIA WA'Lh.K DIS-rFjCT
Laurie Winqarn~ ·
Eng~neeriag Services Manager
Sst~ nr-,,,-~. De~iopmest F. qls=d~l M~,~.~t
L
IThurs~ay taove.~er 30, 1995 10:51am -- Fr~ '9Q~561~3' -- Page 6~
SE~ BY=E i W D ;11-30-95 ;11:47AN; 909658~803~ 90989484~?;~ 4
Ea,te,-. Di,t.
November 22,. 1995
Matthew Fagan
City of Tsmecula
Planning Depp=~ment
43174 3usine.Bs Park Drive
Temecula, Ca~ifornia 92590
m~T ~ O~s ~ ~ Pond ~g AppB~ N~ ~)
:
~ ~. Fag~n:
We ~e renewed ~=e=i~s =rDs~t=ed by yo~ office descrying a
propusal to ~u=~lize an ~is~in~ '3,792 s~e foot b~lding wi~ a
proposal =o; add 6,142 s~e fee~ for a ~o~al g~ 934 s~are foo~
testator. ~The s~jecE projec= located at the in=ersec=lon or ~n~
California ~nd Yncz Roa~ is located ~it~n ~D's se~ue ~ea for
sanitary se~er semce. ~mes=ic wa~er 8e~ice shall be pro~ed by
~n~o Calif~r~a Wa~er Dis~ric=.
The owner s~ make a request for service or amend any current sewer
service agree=fit wi~h our District's Customer Service Depar~_~nt before
occupant. ~lease contact our Dis=rict's Cust~ner Service Department
st (909) 766~18=2 for sewer service.
I= mus= be ~nd~rstood ~hat the available capacities oE ~he District's
sanitary sewer ~ys~m~ ~e con~in~lly ~anginQ due to ~e oc~renue
of ~e~lo~n= Wi~ ~e Diatri~ ~d p~gr~ of sys~ 4~=o~n~.
~ suc~, the pzo~slon of se~ce will be based on ~e t~ng ~f ~he
s~Ject 'project, ~e suat~ of the District's ~ to ~rate, ~d ~e
semce agr~en= be=veen ~he Dis%ric~ and =he o~er of ~e s~jec=
pro j e ct. ~
Should you h~ve '.any ~ues~ions regarding these oc~m~ents, please feel free
· . 4
tQ contact ~3~Ls~ office at. (909) 766-1810, extension 4 67°
w.z,,a/
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
10.
Project Title: Planning Application No. 95-0112 (Plot Plan)
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula
43714 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Contact Person and Phone Number: Matthew Fagan (909) 694-6400
Project Location: Southeast corner of Rancho California and Ynez Roads Tower Plaza)
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mr. Oscar Sarkisian
c/o Oscar's
8500 Rio San Diego Drive
San Diego, CA 92108
General Plan Designation: CC (Community Commercial)
Zoning: Specific Plan No. 180 (Rancho Highlands)
Description of Project: A 9,934 square foot restaurant, utilizing an existing 3,792 foot
building and adding 6,142 square feet
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Embassy Suites Hotel is to the west of the project,
vacant land to the south, Temecula Town Center Shopping Center is to the north, and the
Hope Lutheran Church is located to the East.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department,
Riverside County Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water
District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern
California Edison Company, General TelephOne Company, and Riverside Transit Agency.
R:\STAFFRFI'llI2PA95.PC 11/30/95 b~s 20
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Land Use and Planning
[ ] Hazards
Population and Housing
[ ] Noise
Geologic Problems
[ ] Public Services
Water
[ ] Utilities and Service Systems
Air Quality [ ] Aesthetics
Transportation/Circulation
[ ] Cultural Resources
Biological Resources
[ ] Recreation
Energy and Mineral Resources
[ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[]
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant 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 an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
[]-
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[]
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed~
[]
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
(a} have been analyzed adequately in a earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signature
Date
Printed Name
For
:
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
:~:!~:~: ~: :: ! :Pox*e~tleliy~ ~ L/tibet Leeat Tba~
Issues and Supporting Information Sources !slgnmeam;:~! ::Mm~,t~m Skinre=mr; No
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with general plan designation or
zoning? (1, F2-1, p. 2-17)
b. Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( )
c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? (1, F2-1, p. 2-17)
d. Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? (1, F5-4, p. 5-
17)
e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of
an established community (including low-
income or minority community)? ( )
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal:
a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( )
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( )
c. Displace existing housing, especially
affordable housing? (1, F2-1, p. 2-17)
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving?
a. Fault rupture? ( )
b. Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
( )
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
e. Landslides or mudflows? ( )
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable
soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
( )
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STAPPRPT~.II2PA95.PC 11/30/95 Ires 23
Issues and 'Supporting Information Sources
g. Subsidence of the land? ( )
h. Expansive soils? ( )
Potentid4y:
tl~otentlak%/:~ Udels Lees Than
Sigrdfign~:: :Mitig.lon ~ Slgn~r~nt No
Impact ~ |n4~ Imla~t Impa~
i. Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and mount of surface
runoff? ( )
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding? (1, F7-3,
p. 7-10 and 1, F7-4, p. 7-12)
bs
Discharge into surface waters or other
alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved .oxygen or turbidity)?
( )
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in
any water body? ( )
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( )
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or withdrawals
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( )
fs
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ( )
h. Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public
water supplies? ( )
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or projected air quality
violation? ( )
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( )
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
d. Create objectionable odors? (
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
Iflnl~ :ln~o~,porated ~: Implot Impact
a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
( )
b. Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.
sharp curves or dangerous intersection or
incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment}? (
c. Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( )
d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-
site? ( )
e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ( )
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( )
g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( )
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or
their habitats (including but not limited to
plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? ( )
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? ( )
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( )
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, rip,arian and
vernal pool)? ( )
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( )
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( )
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Issues and Supporting Information ·Sources s~rdrr..m ' M~.t~ Sgr~c.nt
b. Use non-renewal resources in 8 wasteful and
· inefficient manner? ( )
c. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State?
( )
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a. A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to: oil, pesticides, chemical or
radiation)? ( )
b. Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
( )
c. The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( )
do Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( )
e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( )
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels? ( )
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
( }
11: PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection? ( ) :
b. Police protection? ( )
c. Schools? ( )
d.
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ( )
e. Other governmental services? ( )
X
X
X
X
X
X
|mp~,t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:\STA~II2PA95,PC 11/30/~5 Ires 26
Issues and:Supporting~lnformation Sources :: s~,m.r~:: Mmg.t~.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems
or supplies, or substantial alterations
to the following utilities:
a.' Power or natural gas? ( )
b. Communications systems? ( )
c. Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ( )
d. Sewer or septic tanks7 ( )
e. Storm water drainage7 ( )
f. Solid waste disposal? ( )
g. Local or regional water supplies? ( )
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( )
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? { )
c. Create light or glare7 ( ) X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources? (2, F55,
p.280)
b. Disturb archaeological resources? (2, F56, p.
283)
c. Affect historical resources7 (2, p. 281)
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values7 { )
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? ( · )
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
( )
Lell Thin
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
· ' Potentially LJn~esf~ Less Then
· Issues and Supporting Information 'Sources
Implet h~orporlited Impeat
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
)
X
No
Impact
Issues and Supporting .Information 'Sources
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number of restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
c. Does the project have impacts that area
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that eh incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects).
d. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
17. EARLIER ANALYSES.
'PotentMy
Mltlgetion ' SIgnif~e~ No
X
X
X
X
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets.
Ce
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for
review.
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
R:\STAFFRFI~II2PA95.PC 11/30/9,5 In~ 29
SOURCE LIST
City of Temecula General Plan
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impa~t Report
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Planning
1.b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation
of O (Professional Office). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the
Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented
on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular
agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project. Further, all agencies
with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is
anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific
environmental plans or polices. Because the project is in-fill, there will be limited, if any environmental
effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No
significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
1 .e. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-
income or minority community). The project is in-fill commercial development and will occupy the'site
which is currently being used as a meeting and banquet facility. There is no established residential
community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. No significant effects are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Population and Housing
2.a. The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is in-
fill development and will occupy the site which is curren~y being used as a meeting and banquet facility.
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Professional Office. The
project will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official
regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
2.b. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is in-fill
development and will occupy the site which is currently being used as a meeting and banquet facility. While
the project may cause people to relocate to the Temecula area, the project will not induce substantial growth
in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
Geologic Problems
3.a,b,h.
The project may have a significant impact on people involving fault rupture, seismic ground shaking,
seismic ground failure and expansive soils. The project is located adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zone as identified by the State of California, Resource Agency Depaxhuent of Conservation
Special Studies Zone Map. Any potentially significant impam will be mitigated through building
construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, prelirnin~,y soil
reports are required as pan of the application submittal and will be used to determine appropriate
conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the
soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking,
seismic ground failure and expansive soils.
R:'~STAFFRFrXlI2pA95,FC 11130/95 Ires 31
3 .c,g.
The project will not result in liquefaction or subsidence of the land. The project is not located in a
liquefaction hazard area and an area of potential subsidence as identified on Figure 7 of Final
Environmental Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan. No significant effects are anticipated
as a result of this project.
3 .d. The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in
an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this
project.
3 .e. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Fired Environmental Impact for the City
of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or
proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.f. The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography, grading or fill.
Increased wind and water erosion of soils both on and off-site may occur during the construction phase of
the project and the 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 end
landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. The project will result in a change in
the site topography and ground surface relief features for the creation of additional parking spaces on site.
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. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or
fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. No impacts are
foreseen as a result of this project.
3.i. The project will not impact 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.
Water
4.a. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface
runoff. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings,
accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, any
· potential impacts can be 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.
4.c. The project may have a potentially significant effect on 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.
4.d. The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface water in any
waterbody. A "pond" exists to the west of the project. The applicant will have to receive permission to
drainage into the pond. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be
rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. Drainage from
this area has not posed a significant impact in the past and it is not anticipated to do so as a result of this
project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this projea.
4.e. The project will not impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. The project site is
not located adjacent to either marine or fresh water sources or areas where there is concentrated currents
or water movements. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.f-h.
The projea will not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direa additions
or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss
of groundwater recharge capability. 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.
Further, the project will not result in an altered direction or rate of flow of groundwaters or in impacts
to groundwater quality. Construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant
impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4.i. Thepr~jectwil~n~tresu~tinasubstantialreducti~nintheam~unt~fgr~undwaterwater~therwiseavailab~e
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
completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Air Ouali_ty
5.a. The project will not violate any air quality standard or centribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan. Air Quality analysis in the General Plan's
Environmental Impact Report shows no significant impact to air quality at buildout of the City. The analysis
was conducted with the assumption that land uses would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use
Designations. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.b. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no sensitive recepwrs in proximity
to the project.
5.c. The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The
. limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.d. The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will
be of short duration and are not considered significant.
TramDonation/Circulation
6.a. The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips and may add to traffic congestion.
It is anticipated that the project have a less than five (5) percent increase to the nearest intersection (Rancho
California and Ynez Roads during the PM peak travel hour. The restaurant will not be open for breakfast;
therefore it is not anticipated that the project will impact the AM peak travel. The applicant will be required
to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:XSTAFFRPT~II2PAg$.~C 11t30/95 Ires 33
6.b. The projea wfil not result in hazards to safety from design futures. The projea is in-fill within an existing
center. Further, the project is designed to current City sumdards and does not propose any hazards to safety
from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.c. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The projea is in-fdl
commercial development and will occupy the site which is currently being used as a meeting and banquet
facility. Further, the project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The
project does not provide access to nearby uses, therefore, it will not impact access to nearby uses. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.d. The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The applicant has completed a parking needs
analysis based upon the uses proposed by this project. Based upon this analysis, there will be sufficient on-
site parking spaces provided. The applicant will required to enter inW a reciprocal parking agreement so
that some of the parking on their parcel can be utilized by people who wish to use the park. It is anticipated
that the agreement will also specify the amount of parking that the applicant can use which is part of the
Park. Off-site parking will not be impacted. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
6.e. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. A sidewalk exist on the site
from both Rancho California and Ynez Roads. Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as
part of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
6.f. The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Currently,
Riverside Transit Agency Route 23 travels through the intersection of Ynez and Rancho California Roads,
in proximity to the project site. Bicycle racks will be required as a condkion of approval for the project.
No significant impacts ere anticipated as a result of this project.
6.g. The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently in the
immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Biological Resources
7. a. The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including,
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously graded and
developed. C~rrentiy, there are no' native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered
species of plants, no native vegetation on or adjacent to the site. Further, there is no indication that any
wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier
to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.b. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are
protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City.
Since this project is not located in Old Town, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
7.c. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7.d. The projea will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. The project is in-fill commercial development
and will occupy the site which is currently being used as a meeting and banquet facility. The pond to the
west will not be disturbed. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
?.e. The project will not resuk in an impact w wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does
not serve as part of a migration coffidor; however, the pond does serve as a migration corridor. The project
will not impact the Pond area; therefore it is not anticipated that the migration corridor will be impacted.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Energy and Mineral Resources
8.a. The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be
reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check
stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b. The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful
and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of nse of any natural resource and in the
depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (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.
8.c. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future
value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value
to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Hazards
9.a. The project will not result in a risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of
an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. The same is true for the use,
storage, transport or disposal of any hazardous or toxic materials. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
9.b. 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 projea will take
access from a 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.
9.c. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will
be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be
issued uuless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
9.d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are
known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
35
9.e. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with timable brush, grass, or frees.
The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Noise
lO.a.
The proposal will result in increases to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and any
development of the land would result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as
increases to noise in the area over the long ran. The project site is located within a commercial
corridor. There are no sensitive receptors located in the area. No significant noise impacts are
anticipated as a.result of this project in either the short or long run.
10.b.
The project may expose people to severe noise levels and vibrations during the
development/construction phase (short ran). 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 g-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.
Public Services
ll.a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact 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.
11.c.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school
facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate to the City of Temecula
and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
ll.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact for the maintenance of public facilities, including
roads. Funding for maintenance of roads is derived from the Gasoline Tax which is distributed to the
City of Temecula from the State of California. Impacts to current and future needs for maintenance
of roads as a result of development of the site will be incremental, however, they will not be considered
significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses.
ll.e.
The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Utilities and Service Systems
12.a.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to power or
natural gas. These systems are currently being delivered to the site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
12.b.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to
communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
R:',STAFFRP~II2PAgS.!aC 11/30/95 has 36
12.c.
The project will have a less than significant effect in the need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities.
12.d.
The project will not result in a need for new sysmms or supplies, or substantial alterations to sanitary
sewer systems or septic tanks. While the project will have an incremental impact upon existing
systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's General Plan stems: "both
EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services
areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not
significantly impact wastewater services (p . 40)." Since the project is consistent with the City's General
Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site
or proximate to .the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.e.
The proposal will result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water
drainage. The project is in-fill, and will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems, The
drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing
system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.f.
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.
12.g.
The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or
regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result
of this project.
Aesthetics
13.a.
The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is in-fill and is not located in
a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways.
No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b.
The project may have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Mature trees on the site are slated for
removal as a result of this project. While the trees that are proposed to be removed are common to the
area (primarily Eucalyptus and Sycamore), the project site still provides a unique setting for the
Temecula area. The applicant has preserved trees. The landscape plan proposes additional trees. The
proposed trees are fast growing and are similar to those that are slated for removal. While the impact
initially will be noticeable, the overall impact will not be significant.
13.c.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce
and result in light/glare as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and
glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to
be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
Cultural Resources
14.d.
The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values. None exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
14.e.
The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No
religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Recreation
15.a,b.
The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to
relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in impacts or in an increase in demand
for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or
quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
R:XSTAFPRPT~II2PAgJ.I*C 11/30/95
AT'FACHMENT NO. 3
MrrlGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:\STAPFRPTXlI2PAg$.PC 11/30/95
< .!< < <
~ z ~ ~
< < <
<
< <
< ~
<
z
~ ~ z
<
z ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:~STAFR~I'T~II2PA95.1~C 11/~0/~ Ires
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA95-0112 (PLOT PLAN - OSCARS)
EXHIBIT- A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 4, 1995
VICINITY MAP
\\I
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - SP 180 (RANCHO HIGHLANDS)
· P .> BP
H
BP
BP
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - PROFESSIONAL OFFICE
CASE NO. - PA95-0112 (PLOT PLAN - OSCARS)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- DECEMBER 4, 1995
I
L
N
CITY OF TEMECULA
OSCAR'S ON THE POND
·
,
CASE NO. - PA95-0112 (PLOT PLAN - OSCARS)
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 4, 1995
SITE PLAN
R:\STAFFILFI~l12PAg5.I~C 11/21/95
CITY OF TEMECULA
WEST ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
CASE NO. - PA95-0112 (PLOT PLAN - OSCARS)
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 4, 1995
ELEVATIONS
R:\STAFFRFi~l12PA95.1~C 11/21/95 hns
CITY OF TEMECULA
NORTH E~TION
8OUTH EI.,E~TION
CASE NO. - PA95..0112 (PLOT PLAN - OSCARS)
EXHIBIT- E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE ~ DECEMBER 4, 1995
ELEVATIONS
CITY OF TEMECULA
./
CASE NO. - PA95-0112 (PLOT PLAN - OSCARS)
EXHIBIT- F
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 4, 1995
LANDSCAPE PLAN