The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About010896 PC Agenda· . ,. ~:.' .,....... ""'~ ".~i' ':,.""'...: ,...~.:.'..'.. '~i,".';,,'. ':.;,,, ,.:;.. ';. ,. arc not lisl.~ on thu Ae~nda. Spuakurs arc limit~.l I.,,> three. (,3) minu~*e.~ each. If ,you desire [o . . ... .,..,...~., . . . ': , . .,, . ,' When you aru call~ m speak, .plua.,.;e ~nne fo.~'ward. and ~t(Jle~ yol~r tlalne arid addl~e~',~'. . . .~. . ": , = .' . , · . . !. Apprnval or A~enda ' · .i~;' ,!..: Planner: Craig. Ruiz R~endation: PLAN~NG COMMISSION DISCUSSION ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 1995 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, November 6, 1995, 6:00 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford presiding. PRESENT: Miller, Fahey, Ford, Webster ABSENT: Slaven Also present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz, Senior Planner John Meyer, Principal Engineer Steve Cresswell. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Ford called for public comments on non-agenda items. There were no requests to speak. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. ADDroyal of Aoenda It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 1 DIRECTOR'S UPDATE 2. COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Fahey, Ford, Webster COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Slaven Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated she was available to answer questions on any item submitted in the written report. There were no questions from the Commission. Minutes.pc. 11/06/95 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 3. NOVEMBER 6. 1995 ADDrOYal Of Minutes 3.1 Minutes of June 5, 1995 It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes of June 5, 1995 with the following modifications: Page 3 - Item 4 PA95-0034 (Plot Plan) after Mitigation on the traffic study and the TransPortation Easement. add the following: The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Ford, Fahey, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven 3.2 Minutes of Julv 17, 1995 It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes of July 17, 1995 as written. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Ford, Fahey, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Slaven 3.3 Minutes of August 70 1995 It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes of August 7, 1995, with the following modifications: 1) Insert Fahe¥ and delete Blair where it appears. 2) Page 5 - change sentence to read that "Commissioner Miller recommended the installation of a pedestrian walkway starting at "E" Street to "A" Street" and 3) On page 5 - PA 95-0015 - Tentative Tract MaD insert action taken as follows: "lt was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to continue the tentative tract map PA 95-0015 to the next Planning Minutes.pc. 11/06/95 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Commission Meeting of August 21, 1995." The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 NOES: 0 ABSENT: I NOVEMBER 6. 1995 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Ford, Fahey, Webster COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Slaven 3.4 Minutes of August 21. 1995 It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to approve the minutes of August 21, 1995, with the following modification: On page 6 - change the number 5 to 4 COMMISSIONERS on the action taken. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Ford, Fahey, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. PA 95-0097 (Public Use Permit) Assistant Planner Matthew Fagen presented the staff report and cited the rationale for selection of this location for the ABC Preschool. Staff recommended adoption of the negative declaration and the Planning Application 95-0097. Commissioner Miller expressed concern with the design as submitted making the east drive way the only way in and the west driveway the only way out, Commissioner Ford expressed concern that cars might park in the street and requested the street width. Engineer Cresswell responded this is a three-lane street, which has ample space for street parking. Minutes.pc. 11/06/95 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 6. 1995 Commissioner Webster requested the results of the traffic study and what impact increased traffic would have on Solaria Way. He also wondered if a crosswalk and sidewalks were needed. Commissioner Fahey expressed her support for the installation of the proposed traffic signal prior to the opening of the preschool. Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 6:30 P.M. Malinda Smith, Owner of ABC Preschool, thanked the staff for all the assistance she received during the planning process. She stated that she was in agreement with the design of the driveways. Commissioner Fahey expressed concern with the shortage of parking spaces during activities at the pre-school. Ms. Smith responded that all age group activities are not held on the same day or hour and they would continue to be scheduled in this manner. Commissioner Ford recommended that parking for employees be restricted to the rear of the school. He also requested a specific time for outside play be conditioned. Ms, Smith responded that she was in agreement to restrict employee parking to the rear and that 6:00 P.M. would be an acceptable time to end outdoor play. Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 6:45 P.M. Commissioner Webster expressed concern on the alignment of the west driveway and recommended that it be aligned with Ryecrest Street in order to be able to form a standard 4-way stop at this intersection. Commissioner Fahey expressed her hesitation on approval for this project due to the configuration of the driveway. Commissioner Slaven arrived at 6:50 P.M. Chairman Ford called for a straw vote to approve installation of a four- way stop at Solana Way and Ryecrest. The following verbal poll was taken: Ford - No; Fahey - No; Miller - No; Webster - Yes. The consensus was not to install a four-way stop at that location, Minutes.pc. 11/06/95 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 6. 1995 Chairman Ford recommended a condition of approval for additional lighting to be installed in the school parking lot. Planning Manager Ubonske responded that this will be conditioned for the Building Department to review. Chairman Ford called for a straw vote to condition the installation of the proposed traffic light prior to the opening of the preschool. The following verbal straw vote was taken: Miller - No; Ford - No; Fahey - Yes; Webster - No. The consensus was not to delay the project with a condition requiring installation of the traffic signal prior to the opening of the school. Ms. Smith expressed opposition to the realignment of the driveway, however, she will abide by the direction of the Commission. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve the Public Use Permit for ABC Preschool to include re-alignment of the driveway. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Ford, Fahey NOES: I COMMISSIONERS: Webster ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: I COMMISSIONERS: Slaven 5. PA95-0088 (Plot Plan) Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report. Staff recommended adoption of the negative declaration. Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 P.M. Scott Scaling, representing Lusardi Construction, explained that the building has not yet been designed and also the landscaping project has yet to be addressed by Corporate Headquarters. Minutes .pc. 11/06/95 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 6. 1995 Commissioner Slaven asked how many employees would be working at this site. Mr. Scaling responded that 25-30 employees would be working in this building. Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M. Commissioner Webster recommended that environmental concerns such as working with dust and dirt be enforced during construction of the building. Commissioner Slaven expressed concern with the increased traffic generated to and from this site and is concerned with the accumulation of traffic volume from all new projects. Planning Manager Ubonske responded that this has been reviewed and analyzed, and reported that all new sites being considered have to be consistent with the general plan. A motion was made by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Miller to approve the PA95-0088 Plot Plan. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 Webster COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Ford, Fahey, Slaven, NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Webster ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 6. PA95-0096 (Plot Plan) Assistant Planner Craig Ruiz presented the staff report and explained that the Old Town Local Review Board has approved the demolition of a 6,600 square foot commercial building in Old Town. It has been brought before the Commission to request a certification of appropriateness. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Ford asked if this would disturb the Fifth Street alignment in relation to the sewer line through Old Town. Assistant Planner Ruiz responded that it would not. Chairman Ford opened the Public Hearing at 7:40 P.M. Minutes.pc. 11/06/95 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 6. 1995 Tom Leevers, representing the applicant, detailed the proposal and presented two modifications to the plan: 1) to demolish the north retaining wall due to flood control and 2) amend to state simulated wood will be used in place of concrete as walkway. Chairman Ford closed the Public Hearing at 7:52 P.M. It was moved by Commissioner Fahey and seconded by Commissioner Slaven to approve the negative declaration to demolish the building, certification of appropriateness, and to grant authority for the Planning Director to hear and approve any modifications to the plan. The motion was unanimously carried. PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT None given. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Miller expressed a need for a joint workshop with the City Council to hear the Council's opinions on density in the outlying areas, including annexation and the status of developing annexation policies. Director of Community Services Gary Thornhill responded that if a workshop is proposed, a specific agenda needs to be developed prior to scheduling of the workshop, It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Fahey to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried. The next meeting will be held December 4, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Steve Ford Secretary Minutes.pc. 11/06/95 7 ITEM #3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager January 8, 1995 Director's Hearing Case Update No cases were heard in December 1995. The following cases were approved at Planning Director's Hearings in November 1995: November 2, 1995 PA95-0093 · Conditional Use Permit Renewal for Temecula Auto Wrecking and Towing November 30, 1995 PA95-0113 · Deletion of Conditions of Approval for Improvements to Pujol Street, First Pacific National Bank Attachment: 1. Action Agendas for November 1995 - Blue Page 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 ACTION AGENDAS R:\DIRHEAR\MEMO~I-g-96.DH 12z4/95 klb ~2 ACTION AG~A TEMECULA DIRECTOR' S B~F. ARING REG~ I~F-F, TING NOVEMBER 2, 1995 1:30 P1VI TEM2ECULA CITY HAI x, MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: John' Meyer, Senior Planner PUBLIC CO1ViM'F, NTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to spa to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be fried out and ~ed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be flied with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (.3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC Frtr.&RING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: planning Application No. 95-0093 (Renewal of Conditional Use Permit) Frank Slaughter/Temecula Auto Wrecking and Towing 41910 "C" Street A renewal of an existing conditional use permit for Temecuia Auto Wrecking and Towing Categorical Exemption per Section 15301 of the California Environmental (L)uality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner Approval ACTION: APPROVED ACTION AGENDA TE1V[ECULA DIRECTOR'S HEARING REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 30, 1995 1:30 PM TEMECULA CITY HALL - MAIN CONFERENCE ROOM 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 CALL TO ORDER: John Meyer, Senior Planner PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address to the Senior Planner on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Senior Planner about an item not listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the Senior Planner. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Senior Planner before that item is heard. There is a three (3) minute time limit for individual speakers. PUBLIC HEARING Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Case Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA95-0113 First Pacific National Bank On the southerly side of Ridge Park Drive, approximately 1200 feet south of Rancho California Road Request to delete conditions of approval for the improvements to Pujol Street for the previously approved Parcel Map No. 23969 Exempt Craig Ruiz Approval ACTION: ADJOURNMENT APPROVED R:\DIRHEAR~AGENDAXlI-30-95,AGN 1l/4/95 ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING January 8, 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Planning Application No. PA95-0133, Zoning Amendment Planning Application No. PA95-0134, General Plan Amendment Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: RECOMMEND Adoption of the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA95-0133,Zoning Amendment and Planning Application No. PA95-0134, General Plan Amendment; and ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of PA95-0133, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of PA95-0134, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and APPLICATION INFORMATION RECOMMEND Approval of Planning Application No. PA95- 0133, Zoning Amendment and Planning Application No. PA95-0134, General Plan Amendment and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICANT: Terraton Corporation/Nissan of Temecula REPRESENTATIVE: Larry Markham, Markham & Associates PROPOSAL: General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment for a .67 acre parcel to change the existing land use and zoning designation from Community Commercial to Service Commercial LOCATION: The easterly side of Ynez Road, approximately 270 feet northerly of Solana Way EXISTING ZONING: C1/CP (General Commercial) PROPOSED ZONING: SC (Service Commercial) R:',STAFFRPT~I33PA95.PC 1/4/96 klb SURROUNDING ZONING: North: C1/CP South: C1/CP East: C 1/CP West: CPS (General Commercial) (General Commercial) (General Commercial) (Highway Tourist Commercial) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Community Commercial PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Service Commercial EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Car Dealership Vacant Commercial Shopping Center Car Dealership BACKGROUND Planning Application No. PA95-0133 and Planning Application No. PA95-0134 were formally submitted to the Planning Department on December 14, 1995. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on January 4, 1996. Planning Application No. PA95- 0133 and Planning Application No. PA95-0134 were deemed complete on January 4. 1996. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposal is for a General Plan Amendment to change the existing Land Use Designation from Community Commercial to Service Commercial and a Zoning Amendment to change the proposed Zoning Designation from Community Commercial to Service Commercial. ANALYSIS The proposed site is located on one of two vacant parcels within a commercial shopping center. The center contains retail shops and a restaurant to the east and a vacant parcel of land to the south of the subject site. Car dealerships are located to the north and west of the site. The Planning Department has received applications on both vacant parcels. The southerly parcel has a proposal for a gas station/mini-market/car wash and on the subject site is a proposal to expand the adjacent Nissan dealership to this site (the expansion request is a separate application and is not before the Commission). The proposal to expand the Nissan dealership to this site is inconsistent with the General Plan and Draft Development Code. The Community Commercial Draft Zoning and Land Designations prohibit automobile dealership uses. The Draft Zoning and Land Designations do permit gas stations. Thus, should the Planning Commission or the City Council ultimately not adopt the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zoning Amendment (ZA), the proposal to expand the dealership cannot be approved. It is the opinion of staff that the GPA and ZA, and ultimately the automobile dealership, would be compatible with the surrounding dealership and retail uses. R:\STAFPRFI~133PA95.PC 1/3/96 klb 2 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The existing General Plan Land Use Designation and the proposed Zoning Designation are Community Commercial. The proposal will change the designations to Service Commercial to facilitate the proposed automobile dealership expansion. The Draft Zoning Code conditionally permits automobile dealerships in the Service Commercial Zone. Therefore, a Conditional Use Permit will be required to be approved before the dealership can expand. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared for this proposal. The Initial Study determined that although the proposal 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 Mitigation Monitoring Program. These will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance; therefore staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for the proposal. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The site of the proposal is located in an area with numerous auto-related and retail business. Vacant land in the area is anticipated to include more of the same. Thus, it is staff's opinion that the approval of the GPA and ZA to facilitate the automobile dealership expansion will be consistent with the existing and anticipated land uses in the area. Thus, staff recommends that the Commission recommend approval to the City Council. FINDINGS 1. The proposal is consistent with all applicable sections of the General Plan. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses which are existing and future commercial developments. Mitigation measures contained within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will reduce the impacts of the proposal below a level of significance. The site of the proposal is suitable to accommodate the land uses permitted in the Draft Development Code due to the fact that the development standards as proposed within the Draft Development Code and the mitigation measures within the Negative Declaration ensure orderly development of the site. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. PC Resolution o Blue Page 5 PC Resolution - Blue Page 9 Initial Study - Blue Page 13 Exhibits - Blue Page 38 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 96- ATrACI-IM~NT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PIANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA95-0133, CHANGING ~ ZONING DESIGNATION FROM COMMUNITY COMM~,RCIAL TO SERVICE COMMERCIAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, APPROXIMATEI.Y 270 FEET NORT~WRLY OF SOLANA WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-680-007 WltEREAS, Terraton Corporation fried Planning Application No. PA95-0133 in accordance with the City of Temecuh General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; W!~,REAS, Planning Application No. PA95-0133 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WltEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA95-0133 on January 8, 1996, at a duly noticed public heating as prescribed by law, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or in opposition; WItEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, ff any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA95-0133; NOW, THEREFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA95-0133, makes the following fmdings, to wit: 1. The proposal is consistent with all applicable sections of the General Plan. 2. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses which are existing and future commercial developments. R:',S]?AFFRPT~133PA95.PC 1/3/96 3. Mitigation measures in contained within the Mitigation MoniWring Program will reduce the impacts of the proposal below a level of significance. 4. The site of the proposal is suitable to accommodate the land uses permitted in the Draft Development Code due to the fact that the development standards as proposed within the Draft Development Code and the mitigation measures within the Negative Declaration ensure orderly development of the site. 5. Said fmdings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA95-0133, as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and weftare of the community. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Pursuant to the California Enviromental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared for this proposal. The Initial Study determined that although the proposal 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 the Mitigation Monitoring Program. These will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance; therefore staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for the proposal. Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecuia Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA95-0133 to change the zoning on approximately .67 acres of land from Community Commercial to Service Commercial on property located on the easterly side of Ynez Road, approximately 270 feet northerly of the intersection of Ynez Road and Solana Way and known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 921-680-007. R:XSTAFFRPT~I33PA95.PC 1/3/96 kib 7 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of January, 1996. STEVEN J. FORD CHAIRMAN I IIERI~,RY CERTIF/that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 8th day of January, 1996 by the foBowing vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: DEBBI~ UBNOSKE SECRETARY R:\STAFFRF~I33PA95.PC 1/3/96 klb 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 96- AT'FACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 96.- A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMF~NDING APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA95-0134, CHANGING TFrR. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL TO SERVICE COIVIM~RCIAL ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON ~ EASTERLY SIDE OF YNEZ ROAD, APPROXIMATEJ.Y 270 FEET NORTH OF SOLANA WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCFJ. NO. 921-680-007 W!tEREAS, Tetraton Corporation fded Planning Application No. PA95-0134 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHI~REAS, Planning Application No. PA95-0134 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WtW. REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA95-0134 on January 8, 1996, 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; WItF. REAS, at said 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. PA95-0134; NOW, THEREFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI:rF. CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Findings. A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of Planning Application No. PA95-0134, makes the following fmdings, to wit: 1. The proposal is consistent with all applicable sections of the General Plan. 2. The proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses which are existing and future commercial developments. 3. Mitiigution measures in contained within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will reduce the impacts of the proposal a level of significance. R:\STAFFRavP, I33PA95.PC 1/3/96/rib '] 0 4. The site of the proposal is suitable to accommodate the land uses described in the General Plan due to the fact that the requirements of the General Plan, the development standards proposed within the Draft Development Cede and the mitigation measures within the Negative Declaration ensure orderly development of the site. 5. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference. B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA95-0134, as proposed, is compatible with the health, safety and weftare of the community. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study has been prepared for this proposal. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed proposal 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 Mitigation MoniWring Program. These will mitigate any potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance; therefore staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for the proposal. Section 4. Conditions, That the City of Tcmecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Planning Application No. PA95-0134 to change the General Plan Land Use Designation on an approximately .67 acres of land from Community Commercial to Service Commercial on property located on the easterly side of Ynez Road, approximately 270 feet north of the intersection of Ynez Road and Solana Way and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-680- 007. Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of Januazy, 1996. STEVEN' J. FORD CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIYY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 8th day of January, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: DEBBIE UBNOSKE SECRETARY R:',STAFFR_PTH33PAg$.IK~ 1/3/96 kit, ATTACHMENT NO. 3 INITIAL STUDY CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist m m 10. Project Title: Planning Application No. 95-0133, Change of Zone Planning Application No. 95-0134, General Plan Amendment Planning Application No. 95-0136, Revised Permit Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula 43714 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Person and Phone Number: Craig Ruiz (909) 694-6400 Project Location: Easterly side of Ynez Road, approximately 270 feet northerly of Solana Way Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Terraton Corp. P.O. Box 2159 Escondido, CA 92033 General Plan Designation: CC (Community Commercial) Zoning: C1/CP (General Commercial) Description of Project: Zoning Amendment to change the zoning from Community Commercial (CC) to Service Commercial (SC), General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Designation from Community Commercial (CC) to Service Commercial (SC), and a Revised Permit to allow the expansion of an existing car dealership to an adjacent and vacant parcel of land. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is an approximately .6 acre vacant parcel in a neighborhood commercial shopping center. The shopping center is located immediately to the east of the site, car dealerships are located to the west and north, and to the south is vacant land. The property to the south is currently undergoing development review for a proposed gas station, mini-market and self-service car wash. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone Company. 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: [] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [x] 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:~STAPI~,FI~I33PA95.1~C 1/~/96 ~ 15 [] 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 Craig D. Ruiz EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Issues and Supporting InformatiOn Sources 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (1, F2-1, p. 2-17) X Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (2) c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1, F2-1, p. 2-17) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1, F5-4, p. 5-17) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)? ( ) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (1, T4-2a, p. 4-5) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (1, T4-2a, p. 4-5) c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1, F2-1, p. 2-17) GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? (1, F7-1, p 7-6) b. Seismic ground shaking? (1, F7-1, p 7-6) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (1, F7-2, p 7-9) d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) X X X X X X X X X X X R:~STAlrFRPT~133PA95.PC 1/3196 klb 17 Issues and Supporting Information Sources e. Landslides or mudflows? (2, pgs. 65-70) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? (2, pgs 65-70) g. Subsidence of the land? (1, F7-2, p 7-9) h. Expansive soils? (2, pgs 60-65) i. Unique geologic or physical features? (2, pgs 60-65) 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) 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? ( ) g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) h. Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) Potentially Significant $ignifk=ant Mt~igation Incorporated Than Signifio~t i~npact X X X X X X X X X X X X X R:~STAFFRIYI~I331~Ae$,iuC 113196 klb 18 Issues and Supporting Information 'Sources Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (2, pgs. 70-92) b. 'Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d. Create objectionable odors? ( ) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (2, pgs 201-239) 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? ( ) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (2, pgs. 201- 239) g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( ) X X X X X X X X X X X X R:~STAFFRIti~I33PA95.1='C 1/3/96 Idb 19 m Issues and Supporting Information Sources BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: 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)? ( ) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (1, F5-3, pg 5-15) d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (1, F5-3, pg 5-15) e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) 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, chemical or radiation)? ( ) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) Potentially 6kinfficant Impact I~entially Lees Than Significant Impact X X X X X X X X X X R:~STAFF]tP]~I33PA95.FC 113/96 Iclb 20 Issues and Supporting Information Sources 10. 11. 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? ( ) NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? ( ) b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) 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 X X X X R:~TAFFRPT\I33PA95.PC 1/3/96 k]b 21 Issues and Supporting Information Sources 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: Power or natural gas? ( ) Communications systems? ( ) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) d. Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) eo 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 area? ( ) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: Signilk}ant Signl~ant X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X R:\STAFFRPT~133PA95.PC 1/3/96 kib 22 Issues and Supporting Information Sources a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) Potentielh/ Signi~oant Impaet Mitigation Than Signifk:ent X X R:\STAFFR]q~133PAg5.PC 1/3/96 kJb 23 Issues and Supporting :Information Sources 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to X 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 X achieve 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 X effects 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 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. a. Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. R:\STAFFP, FI~133PA95.~C 1/3/96 klb 24 Potentially Significant Potentially: Unte~a Lame Than Issues and Supporting Information Sources significant: Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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. SOURCE LIST 1 - City of Temecuh General Plan 2 - City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report DISCUSSION OF TI:I'F, ENVIRONIVIR, NTAL IMPACTS Land Use and Planning 1.a. The project is a request for a change of zone and general plan amendment. Thus, should the project be appwved, the zoning map and general plan for the City will be amended accordingly. I.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 an existing commercial center. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. Geologic Problems 3.a.b. Any development of the site will expose people and property to eaxthquake hazards since the project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potential impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Information contained in the City of Temecuh General Plan Environmental Impact Report (certified November 9, 1993) states that the project wffi not expose people or property to geologic hazards such as landslides or mudslides. No known landslides are located on the site or proximate to the site. The same is true for mudslides. There is no potential for ground failure and liquefaction in this area. 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. 3.f. The project will have a less than significant impact from erosion, changes in topography, grading or fffi. 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 wffi be included as a condition of approval for the project. In the long-ran, 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 for the creation of additional parking spaces on site. Grading wffi be necessary for the realiTation of this project. Since the amount of grading wffi be the minimum necessary for the realiTation of the project, modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant. Potential unstable soft conditions from excavation, grading or fffi will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. Water 4.a. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterus and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Previously permeable ground wffi be rendered impervious by constructionof buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff wffi change, any potential impacts can be mitigated through site design. R:\STAFFRFf\I33pA95.PC 1/3/96 Ifib 26 Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle the runoff which will be created. 4.c. The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of su~ace 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 l~-limination System Clql}DF_,S) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDF_.S Notice of Intent has been fried 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 mount of surface water in any waterbody. No major waterbodies are located in the subject project area. 4.e. The pwject 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. 4.f-h. The project wffi not result in a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquffer 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 aquffer 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. 4.i. The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the mount of groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. Water service currently exists at the project site. Additional water service wffi need to be provided by Raneho California Water District CRCWD). 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 Ouality 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. 5.d. The project wffi create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. R:\STAFFRPTXI33PA95.PC 15196 lab 27 Transportation/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 (Solaria Way and Ynez Roads during peak travel hour. The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project. No impacts axe anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b.c. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is in-ffil within an existing center. Further, the project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. 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 suffmient on-site parking spaces provided. 6.e. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. A sidewalk exist on the site along Ynez Road. Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. 6.g. The project will not result in impacts to nil, wate~ome or air irafire since none exists curren~y in the immediate proximity of the 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 is located adjacent to a commercial shopping center. Curren~y, 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 cumuhtive impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.b. The project will not resuR in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not prometed elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not locai~l in Old Town, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.e. The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. R:\STAFFRPT~I33PA95.PC 113196 Energy 8.a. 8.b. 8.c. Hazards 9.a. 9.b. 9.c. 9.d. 9.e. NOise 10.a. and Mineral Resources The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The pwject will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable hws 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 hws. 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 w the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. 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. 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. 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 wffi take access from a maintained street and wffi therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. 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 hws during the plan check stage. No permits wffi be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. 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. The project will not result in an increase to fife hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is not located within or proximate to a fLre hazard area. 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 a commercial corridor. There are no sensitive receptors located in the area. R:~STAFFRFI~133PA95.PC 1/~1~6 klb 29 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 source of noise will be of short duration and therefore wffi 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 fife 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. 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 wffi not result in a need for new or altered school heftties. 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 W 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 axe anticipated as a result of this project. Utilities and Service Systems 12.a. The project wffi 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. 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.). 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 systems 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 (FF~) for the City's General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is required in their services areas (p. 39)." The ~ 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. R:~STAFFRFI~lS3pA95.PC 113/96 klb 30 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-fffi, 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. 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. 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. Aesthetics 13.a. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is in-f~l and is not located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. 13 . b. The project is an infffi in nature and wffi not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. 13.c. The project wffi 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). 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 wffi 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 proposal will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in impacts to the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. ATTAC~ NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:'xSTAFFP. F~133PAgLPC 1/3/96 klb ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:\STAFPRFI~133PA95,PC 113/96 klb 38 CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO.-PA95-133, PA95-0134 XHIBIT- A II ~LANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 8, 1996 VICINITY MAP CITY OF TEMECULA EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - C1/CP (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL CASE NO. - PA95-0133, PA95-0134 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JANUARY 8, 1996 R:\STAFFP, F~133PA95.PC 113196 kl~