HomeMy WebLinkAbout052096 PC AgendaTEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
May 20, 1996, 6:00 P.M.
Rancho California Water District 's
Board Room
42135 Winchester Road
Temecnia, CA 92390
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman FAH~Y
ROLL CALL:
Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltyshk and Webster
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address ~he ~
not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. If you
Commissioners about an item n~t listed on the Agenda, a pink "Request go Spe~k"
When you are ca~eak. pi?_,a~:dnle forward a:aJ
- .. '-,
For all other aaex~a it':ms a *Request |(i S
(~Hfifltl.,,%iOft ~.'t~ tO d;at iu,.'n. T]:.'.re is
COffJH. SS;ON BI~"I'~'ESS ':
-'tied wi:h t~'-e Iqan::in£ Secrelary before
m,e liE::, tor i::.]ivi.:.;d sl~cak.~rs.
I. A
Recommend
Case No:
Applicant:
Location:
Proposal:
Environmental Action:
Planner:
Recommendation:
...~
o. PA95-0140
Rancho Baptist Church
29775 Santiago Road
Revise conditions of approval for Plot Plan No. 625 to
allow temporary modular buildings to become permanent
and to allow additional classroom buildings (Continued
from the March 4, 1996 Commission Meeting)
Exempt
Craig Ruiz
Approve
R:XWII~BERVOXPLANCO~(II~'qDASXS-6=9~ 5115/96 ~ 1
pLANNING MANAGERS REPOR~t Un~erstan~n
M~V!~XBn M~
p~NING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
2
ITEM #2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 20, 1996
Planning Application No. PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
Prepared By: Stephen Brown, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning
Commission:
1.
2.
3.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
Department Staff recommends the Planning
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for PA96-008;
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for PA96-0008;
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approval of
PA96-0008 based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report; and
APPROVE Ranning Application No. PA96-0008 subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
Robert Tiglio, Hydro-Scape Products, Inc.
Russell Rumansoff, Herron + Rumansoff,Architects, Inc.
Design and construction of a 9,994 square foot
office/warehouse building and 28,200 square foot outdoor
storage area.
South side of Enterprise Circle North, west of Jefferson
Avenue.
Business Park (BP) [Manufacturing Service Commercial
(M-SC) at the time of project submittal]
North:
South:
East:
West:
Business Park [BP)
Business Park (BP) and Service Commercial
(SC)
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT)
Business Park (BP)
Not requested
R:\STAFFILPTXliPA96.PC15/15/96 db
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park (BP)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel and Vacant
Parking Lot and Vacant
Commercial Center
Offices
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Area: 1.75 acres
Total Site Area:
Building Area: 9,994 square feet
Landscape Area: 13,634 square feet
Paved Area: 24,998 square feet
Other Paved areas: storage yard 28,200 square feet
Parking Required: 13 spaces
Parking Provided: 31 spaces
Building Height: Twenty-eight feet (28')
BACKGROUND
A preliminary meeting was held in December, 1995 at which time conceptual site design,
architecture, and the earthquake fault set back constraints were discussed. An agreement was
made to process the case under the uses permitted in the M-SC zone since this was the
transition period prior to the adoption of the new Development Code and Consistency Zoning.
This decision was made based on the City's understanding that the level of design for the
building would be comparable to the surrounding structures and the acknowledgment that the
fault hazard zone constrained the use of the site. The application was formally submitted to
the Planning Department on January 9, 1996, prior to the implementation date of the
Development Code.
Development Review Committee (DRC) meetings were held in January 25, 1996 and March 7,
1996. Planning Application No. PA96-0008 was scheduled for Directors Hearing on April 25,
1996. At that hearing, staff recommended the case be heard by the Planning Commission
because there were four letters of opposition to the project. A special meeting was held with
the applicant and the Community Development Director on April 29, 1996 to clarify the City's
position on the appropriate level of design for the proposed building and landscaping
enhancements.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is a proposal to design and construct a 9,994 square foot office/warehouse facility.
Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the project site will be landscaped. Parking will occupy the
fault hazard zone constrained portion of the site. A 28,000 square foot outdoor storage area
will be enclosed by an eight foot wall and fence combination to provide screening of the stored
contents. The project area has been previously graded. Enterprise Circle North has been
improved to its ultimate right-of-way and all utilities are at the project site.
ANALYSIS
Site Plan/Elevations
The architecture is similar to other buildings in the area in that it will be constructed of tilt-up
concrete panels, with reveals and windows to break up the massing. Parking for the project
occupies the fault hazard set-back area established by County Geologic Report No. 457. An
employee lunch area has been provided at the northern portion of the site. Loading will be at
the west and north sides of the building. The applicant has addressed most of Staff's concerns
regarding the performance standards outlined in the Development Code with the exception of
the articulation of the front entry and additional landscaping enhancements to the street scene
The conditions of approval will require the applicant to revise the elevations to meet the same
level of design established by the surrounding buildings. Specifically, the Development Code
performance standards suggest that projects use creative entry treatments to announce the
buildings entrance. The current design lacks any special architectural features to accomplish
this. The landscaping concept also needs to be revised to conform to the design standards in
the Development Code. Special design features such as additional trees and vines will be
required to break up the large building mass presented at the street scene.
Letters of Oooosition
Staff has received four letters of opposition to the Hydro-Scape proposal. The project
opponents base their objection on the incompatibility with the existing bank, medical office, and
Jefferson Creek retail center. Opponents fear that outdoor storage will be a nuisance and cause
loss of property values. Moreover, the opponents cite traffic impacts and storage of potentially
toxic chemicals as a basis for denial of the project.
Staff has reviewed the project for compatibility with the surrounding area noting the
architectural design of the adjacent buildings. With the conditions of approval requiring revised
landscaping and architectural design, staff feels that the end product will conform to the level
of design in the local community. Other issues raised by the opponents suggest that traffic will
be an issue. The City's Public Works Department has reviewed the project for traffic impacts
and had determined that the project will contribute less than five percent of traffic to
Enterprise Circle North. The storage and use of toxic and hazardous chemical are permitted in
the Business Park designation. Hazardous chemicals usually identified with the proposed land
use consist of glues and solvents utilized in the welding of a variety of plastic pipe. These
chemicals will not be used on the premisses but will be offered for sale to local contractors and
home owners for use off site. Staff has concluded that the sale of these materials does not
constitute a threat to the community.
EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Existing zoning for the site is BP (Business Park). However, because the project was submitted
prior to the implementation date of the Development Code (February 9, 1996) and new zoning
designations, it was determined that the case would be processed under the land uses
permitted by the M-SC zone. Ordinance No. 348 Section 11.2 relating to permitted uses in the
M-SC zone specifically permits building materials sales yards and warehousing and distribution
which would normally include the storage and use of toxic or hazardous materials.
R:\STAFFKFf~gPA96.PC15/15/96 slb 3
The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is BP (Business Park). Typical uses in this
designation may include: light manufacturing, storage, industrial supply and wholesale
businesses. The project as proposed is consistent with the M-SC zone 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.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with the City's General Plan and the M-SC zone. The applicant has
responded to issues and concerns raised by Staff with the exception of architectural details and
landscaping that would make this project conform to the same level of design exhibited by the
surrounding uses. Conditions of Approval will require the applicant to refine the architectural
elevations and landscaping.
FINDINGS
The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and with all
applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances including: Ordinance 348, Ordinance No. 655 (Mr.
Palomar Lighting Ordinance, and Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Landscaping).
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare.
The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat. An Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has determined that
although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these
effects are not considered to be significant due to mitigation measures contained in the
project design and in the Conditions of Approval added to the project.
R:\STAFFRFi~SPA96.PCI 5/15/96 slb 4
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
s
PC Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 6
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9
Initial Study - Blue Page 20
Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 37
Exhibits - Blue Page 44
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C Zoning Map
D. Site Plan
E. Elevations
F. Landscape Plan
Letters of Opposition - Blue Page 45
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COIVIIvitqSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PAg~.O008 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) TO
CONSTRUCT A 9.994 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, AND
WAREHOUSE FACILITY ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 1.75
ACRES LOCATED AT 41581 ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-281-026
AND 909-281-028
WHEREAS, Robert Tigilo filed Planning Application No. PA96-0008 in accordance with
the City of Temecula General Plan;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA964]008 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Manning Application No. PA96-0008
on May 20, 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;
WHEREAS, at the public heating, upon heating and considering all testimony and
arguments, ffany, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission considered all facts relating
to Planning Application No. PA96-0008; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE 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. F_jadia~ The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No.
PA96-0008 makes the following findings, to wit:
1. The proposed use is in conformance with the General Plan for Temecula and
with all applicable requirements of State law and other Ordinances of the City. The project is
consistent with all City Ordinances to include: Ordinance 348(Zoning Code), Ordinance No. 655
OVIt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance), and Ordinance No. 94-22 (Water Efficient Landscaping).
2. The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the
public health, safety and welfare. The project as proposed complies with all City Ordinances and
meets the standards adopted by the City of Temecula designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and welfare.
R:XSTAFFRPTX8pAg~.PC1S/14196slb 7
3. The design of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. An
Initial Study was prepared for the project and it has 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 desig~ and in the Conditions of
Approval added to the project.
4. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA96-0008
(Development Plan) 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. F. nvironmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby
granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA96-0008 to construct a 9,994 square foot office, and warehouse
facility located at 41581 Enterprise Circle North and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-2281-
026 and 909-281-028 subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a
part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 1996.
Linda Fahey, 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 20th day of May,
1996 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie lYonoske, Secretary
ATTACHMENT NO. A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
Project Description: A Devdopment Ran for a new 9,994 square foot warehouse with office
and storage facilities, a 28,200 square foot outdoor storage area and parking for 31 vehicles
and 4 bicycles.
Assessor's Parcel No.
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
909-281-026 and 909-281-028
May 20, 1996
May 20, 1998
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48| Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Seventy-Eight Dollars
($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of
Determination with a DeMinimus Finding required under Public Resources Code Section
21108(b) and California Code of Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason
of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
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. PA96-0008 (Development 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.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A" approved
with Planning Application No. PA96-0008, or as amended by these conditions.
A. A minimum of 33 parking spaces shall be provided.
R:~.STAFFRPT~$PA96.1~CI 5/14/96 db 10
B. A minimum of 2 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided.
Floor Plans and front and side elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit "B",
or as amended by these conditions.
The rear elevation shall conform substantially with Exhibit "C", or as amended by these
conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit "D" or as amended
by these conditions.
Landscape plans shall conform substantially with Exhibit "E", or as amended by these
conditions.
All handicapped parking spaces shall be a minimum of 14 feet by 18 feet as required by
the City of Temecula Code.
All standard parking spaces shall be a minimum of 9 feet by 18 feet as required by the
City of Temecula Development Code.
10. The maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be the responsibility of the developer.
11. All signage shall conform to Ordinance No. 348.
12.
The applicant shall submit revised landscape plans that show sufficient landscaping to
achieve the following: 1 .adequately screen the storage yard from view of the property
to the north of the Santa Gertrudus Creek. 2. Increase the landscaping on the south
and east planting areas adjacent to the building. 3. Increase the landscaping area on the
easterly side of the building. Landscaping plans shall be approved by the Planning
Manager.
13.
The applicant shall up-grade the building entrance to provide a more dominant entrance
statement. The up-grade shall be approved by the Planning Manager.
14.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report, compliance with the
Conceptual Landscape Plans for this stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits
15.
'l~he 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 Ran 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.
16. A copy of the grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager.
17.
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.
1~:~l'AFFRPT~PA96.PCI 5/14/~6 db 11
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
18.
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.
19.
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.
20.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
21.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation
plans.
22.
All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a
condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of
weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation. system shall be properly constructed and in
good working order.
23.
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.
24.
Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Planning Manager to
guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the
approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed
with the Department of Planning.
R:~TAFFRFI~BPA96.PCI 5/14/~6 s,~ 12
25.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
26.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
27.
The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation
measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this
stage of the development.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
28.
Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building,
Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National Electrical Code; California
Administrative Code Title 24 Energy and Disabled access regulations and the Temecula
Municipal Code
29.
Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
30. Obtain street addressing for all proposed buildings prior to submittal for plan review.
31.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disable Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
32.
Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting
and fire alarm systems.
33.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
34. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
35.
Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans
submitted for plan review.
36.
Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and
mechanical plan for plan review.
37. Provide disabled access from the public way.
R:~S~A_~,.=T~p^g6.~Cl 5n4/96 db 13
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any
Government Agency. 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 will subject the project to further review and may require revision.
General Requirements
38.
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.
39.
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.
40.
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
41.
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.
42.
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
43.
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.
44.
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.
45.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
46.
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.
47.
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.
48.
Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department
and the Department of Public Works for review and approval.
49.
An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit.
50.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone A and is subject
to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall
comply with Chapter 15, Section 15.12 of the City Municipal Code and with the rules
and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include
obtaining a letter of rn~p revision from FEMA.
51.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or
through the site. In the event the Department of Public Works permits the use of streets
for drainage purposes, the provisions of Section XI of Ordinance No. 460 will apply.
Should the quantities exceed the street capacity, or use of streets be prohibited for
drainage purposes, the Developer shall provide adequate facilities as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
52.
Improvement plans and/or Precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City
Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. An Encroachment
Permit will be required for any work performed within the City right-of-way. 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.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City of Temecula Standard No. 207A.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved by the Department of Public Works.
Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and
adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
R:~STAFFPJ'1~$PA96.PCI 5114/~6db 15
53.
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.
54.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established
per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
55.
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 secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the security 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; ~ 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
56.
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
57.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
58.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
59.
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. Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at
no cost to any Government Agency. 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 will subject the
project to further review and may require revision.
R:~TAFI~,FI~SPA96.~CI 5114/~6 slb 16
General Requirements
60.
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.
61.
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.
62.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjoining 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
63.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer an,~ 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.
64.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
65.
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.
66.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works.
67.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing that the
grading and erosion control improvements are in conformance with applicable City
Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
68.
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.
69.
An Area Drainage Ran fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District, or verification that such a fee has been previous paid for this lot,
prior to issuance of any permit.
R:~qTAFFRPT~gpA96.PC1 ~i114/96 an, 17
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit
70.
Improvement plans and/or precise grading plans shall conform to applicable City
Standards subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. An Encroachment
Permit will be required for any work performed within the City right-of-way. 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.
b. Driveway 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.
Street outlet for onsite drainage shall be constructed per City of Temecula
Standard No. 301.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as
approved 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.
71.
The Developer shall construct or post security and execute an agreement guaranteeing
the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable
City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
Sidewalk along entire property frontage of Rio Nedo and related improvements
including relocation of street trees and utilities.
72.
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.
73.
The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established
per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
74.
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 secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the security 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
R:~STAFFILP"~SPA96.1~C15/14/96 si 18
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 his/her right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
75.
The Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all rights to object
to the formation of an Assessment District, a Community Facilities District, or a Bridge
and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the proposed Western
Bypass Corridor in accordance with the General Plan. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
76.
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
77.
All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and
City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
78.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken
shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Department of Public
Works.
OTHER AGENCIES
79.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance
No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated February 27, 1996, a copy of
which is attached.
80.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth by the Eastern Municipal
Water District transmittal dated January 23, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
81.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth by the Riverside County
of Department of Environmental Health transmittal dated December 7, 1995, a copy of
which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:~II'AFFRFF~PA96,PC1 5114/96 slb 19
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
I~.:~TAFFRPT~gPA96.1*CI 5/14/96 die ~)0
CITY OF TEMECULA
Environmental Checklist
10.
Project Title: Planning Application No. 96-0008 (Development Plan)
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula
43714 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Stephen Brown, (909) 694-6400
Enterprise Circle North 500 feet north of Winchester Road
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Project Location:
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Hydro-Scape Products, Inc
5808 Kearney Villa Road.
San Diego, CA 92313
General Plan Designation: Business Park (BP)
Zoning: Processed under the MSC zone
Description of Project: Construction of a 9,994 square foot office and storage building
and a 28,200 square foot outdoor storage area for landscape supplies.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is located on a previously graded parcel
within an area of existing light industrial and commercial uses.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside County Fire Department,
Riverside County Health Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal
Water District and Rancho California Water District.
R:~ST~gPA96.PC1 5114/96 slb 21
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
IX] Geologic Problems [ ] Public Services
[ ] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems
[ ] Air Quality IX| Aesthetics
[ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation
[ ] Energy and Mineral Resources [ } Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[]
find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Ix]
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
R:~TAFFRIw~SPA96.P~I 5/141~ db 22
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project.
Stephen Bro 'n, REA Project Planner
Januarv 23.1996
Date
R:~STAFFRPT~gPA96.PC1 ~114/96si 23
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)
b. 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? (3, p. 17.02-3)
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? (1, F4-2, p. 4-5)
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? (1, F7-1, p. 7-6)
b. Seismic ground shaking? (1, F7-1, p. 7-6)
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
(1, F7-2, p. 7-8)
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
e. Landslides or mudflows? ( )
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:k~I'AFFRP~gpA96.I, Cl 5114/96 ,b 24
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
g. Subsidence of the land? (1, F7-2, p. 7-8)
h. Expansive soils? ( )
I. Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a. 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)
Cm
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? ( )
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?
( )
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
c. Alter air movement, moisture or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( )
Potentially Unie~ Less Than
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:~STAIqqm, PT~SPA~.PCI 5/14/96 slb 25
Issues and Supporting 'Information SourCes: significant
d. Create objectionable odors? (
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
8.
Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
(4)
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?
(3, pgl 7.24-9)
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)? (7 & 1, F 5-
3, p. 5-15)
b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? (7 & 1, F 5-3, p. 5-15)
c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g.
oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (7 & 1, F 5-
3, p. 5-15)
d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? (1, F 5-3, p. 5-15)
e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (1, F
5-3. p. 5-15)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:L~TAFFRP~SPA96.PC1 ~114196db 26
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans? ( )
b. Use non-renewal resources in a 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? ( )
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? ( )
bo 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? ( )
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
R:~TAl~J~PT~SPA96)CI 5114/96 db 27
Issues and Supporting' Information Sources
: Significant. Mitlgatkm 8~gntficmnt No
X
e. Other governmental services? ( )
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? ( ) X
b. Communications systems? ( ) X
c. Local or regional water treatment or X
distribution facilities? ( )
d. Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) X
e. Storm water drainage? ( ) X
f. Solid waste disposal? ( ) X
g. Local or regional water supplies? ( ) X
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
( )
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic X
effect? ( )
c. Create light or glare? ( ) X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a. Disturb paleontological resources? (2, F55, X
p.280)
b. Disturb archaeological resources? (2, F56, p. X
283)
c. Affect historical resources? (2, p. 281) X
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change X
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( )
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within X
the potential impact area? ( )
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or X
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
( )
R:~STAFFRIvl'%BPA96.PCI 5114/96sH> 28
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
( )
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal 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?
Potent~tly
Significant
Potentially Urde. Leas Than
Significant Mitigatk~n $igntficafft No
X
X
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 the 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 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.
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.
R:~STAFFRPT~SPA96,PC1 5114/96 slb 29
Issues and Supporting Information Sources $ignificam M~;gation' · Signlfica~ No
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporatec or refined
from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
SOURCE LIST
I - City of Temecula General Plan
2 - City of Temecula General Plan F:~al Environmental Impact Report
3 - City of Temecula Zoning Map
4 - City of Temecula Development Code
6 - Geotechnical Investigation on the wldomar Fault, Parcel Map 19582-2 Rancho California
area, Riverside County, CA.
R:~STAFI~..F~SpA96.PCI 5/14/66 slb 30
DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use and Planning
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 an in-fill
Development Permit and will occupy the site which is currently Vacant. There is an
established commercial and light industrial concentration at this site. No significant
effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
PoOulation and Housing
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 vacant.
While the project could conceivably cause a few 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.e.
Any development of the site will expose people and property to earthquake hazards
since the project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active.
Any potential impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is
consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. The project has been designed to
avoid the fault hazard zone identified by County Geologic Report prepared for the
underlying Parcel Map No. 19582-2. Information contained in the City of Temecula
General Ran Environmental Impact Report (certified November 9, 1993) states that the
project will not expose people or property to geologic hazards such as landslides or
mudslides. No known landslides are located on the site or proximate to the site. The
same is true for mudslides,
3.c,g.
The project is identified by the General Plan as an area susceptible to liquefaction and
subsidence. Any potential impacts will be mitigated through mitigations recommended
in the slope stability report, geotechnical studies, prepared for this site and through
the requirements of the Uniform Building Code standards.
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 fill. The site has been previously graded and will therefore
require minimal grading for the project. 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
and landscaping will serve as permanent erosion control for the project. Since the
amount of grading will be the minimum necessary for the realization of the project,
modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered
significant. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be
mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils.
R:~,STAFFRlq'~SPA~.InC'I 5114196-n, 31
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.
4.b.
The project is located within the limits of the lO0-year flood plan. To mitigate any
potential impacts, a buildings will be required to be build above the flood elevation.
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 [:':=harge 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 impact2 ~re anticipated as a result of this project.
4.d.e.
The project will not result in a change in the amount of surface water in any
waterbody, impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. No
major waterbodies are located in the subject project area.
4.f-h.
The project will not result in a 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. 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.
4.i.
The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
water otherwise available for public water supplies. Water service currently exists at
the project site. Additional water service will need to be provided by Rancho California
Water District (RCWD). This is typically provided upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
Air Quality
5.8.
The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
project air quality violation. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating
any significant impacts on the environment in this area.
5.b.
The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no sensitive
receptors in proximity to the project.
R:'~IrAFFRFf%gPA96.1nC15/14/~6 sllm 32
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 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
6.8.
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 (Enterprise Circle North and Winchester Road)
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.
6.b.c.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is in-
fill within an existing industrial area. Further, the project is designed to current City
standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features.
6.8.
The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. A
sidewalk exist on the site along Solana Way and Ynez Road. Hazards or barriers to
bicyclists have not been identified as part of the 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.
Energy and Mineral Resources
8.8,
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.
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.
9.a.c. The project will not include the storage of petroleum based or other hazardous
products in large quantity.
l~:~TA/ri~,PT~SPA96.1~CI ~114/~6 db 33
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.
9.d.
The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No
health hazards are known to be .... :~*hin proximity of the project.
g.e.
The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable
brush, grass, or trees. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard
area.
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 an industrial area. There are no sensitive receptors
located in the area.
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+ DEA at 100 feet which is considered very
annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source
of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant.
Public Services
11 .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.
11.c.
The project will have a less than significant imOact 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 Temecuta and therefore will not result in a need for new or
altered school facilities. This project may be required to pay school mitigation fees
prior to the issuance of building permits (this determination will be made by the
Temecula Valley Unified School District). No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
11.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.
R:~STAFFRJ~SPA~.PC1 5114/96db 34
11.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.
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
(FEIR) 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 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 Ran, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There
are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site.
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.
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-fill and
is not located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have
any designated scenic highways.
I~:~STAFFRPT~BpA~6.PCI J/14/96db 35
13.b.
Although the project is considered infill in nature, the size and lack of articulation of
the building mass will created a negative aesthetic environment. Mitigation measures
and the conditions of approval will be instituted that will create a similar level of
design compatible with the surrounding area and thus mitigate against the negative
aesthetic effect.
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).
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.
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.
R:~FAFFI~PT~SPA~6.PCI 5/14/96 si 36
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
R:~TAFFIL~I~SpA96.I~CI 5/14/96slb 37
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:~TAFFRPT~SPA96.PCI 5114/96 db 44
CITY OF TEMECULA
"XHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
SIGNATION - M-SC (MANUFACTURING SERVICE COMMERCIAL)
~H
RP
~HIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
~:SIGNATION - BP (BUSINESS PARK)
CASE N0. - PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 20, 1996
R:\STAFFRFT\SPA96,PCI 5/3/96 slb
CC
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- D
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 20, 1996
SITE PLAN
R:XSTAFFRIrr~SPA96.PCi 512196 slb
CITY OF TEMECULA
/
/
/
/'
CASE NO. - PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - F
~LANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 20, 1996
LANDSCAPE PLANS
R:\STAFFPd?T\SPA96.1~CI 5/2/96 db
CITY OF TEMECULA
i
CASE NO. - PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT - E
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 20, 1996
ELEVATIONS
R:~STAFFP, PT~SPA~6.PCI 5/2/96 slb
CITY OF TEMECULA
UH
// '~'~
CTH
LIB
CENTER
BEST
WESTERN
COUNTRY
INN
\, TEMECULA ~-
L
CASE NO. - PA96-0008 (Development Plan)
EXHIBIT- A
'~LANNING COMMISSION DATE - MAY 20, 1996
VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRPTXSPA96.PC15/2/96 sro
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
LETTERS OF OPPOSITION
R:~STAFFRFESpA96.1'CI ~/14/96 i 4~
Jefferson Creek, Ltd.
27311 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 103, Temecula, CA 92590
Phone (909) 676-7177/676-6168 / FAX (909) 699-0048
April 18, 1996
Mr. Stephen Brown
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: PA 96-0008 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
HYDRO~SCAPE PRODUCTS, INC.
Dear Mr. Brown,
I am in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing concerning the proposed development referenced
above.
I represent of Jefferson Creek, Ltd., which owns the adjacent shopping center known as Jefferson
Creek. Our project is a high quality, retail development with tenants such as Richie's Real
American Diner, Filippi's Pi72a, Making Waves Hair Salon, Jarvinen Travel, CDM/Westmar
Commercial Real Estate and others.
We are strongly opposed to the proposed development for the following reasons:
The use is incompatible with the surrounding development in North Jefferson Business
Park, which includes our property. It is in~rnediately adjacent to office buildings, medical
office buildings, First Pacific National Bm~k, and similar uses. The proposed use is
clearly an industrial use.
The proposed use will have a high concentration of outside storage. According to the site
plan that I have reviewed, the building consists of 9,994 sq. ft. with outside storage of
27,830 sq. ft. The storage yard is the predominant use. I have enclosed for your review
photographs of the Hydro-Scape building and yard located in Escondido so you can get
some sense of what type of use it really is. We believe the photographs graphically
illustrate that the use is incompatible with the existing development surrounding the
project.
Mr. Stephen Brown
April 18, 1996
Page 2
In summary, we believe the proposed project will adversely impact surrounding properties. We
request that this proposed project be denied on the basis of its incompatibility with surrounding
uses.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
JEFFERSON CREEK, LTD.
CO-MANAGING GENERAL PARTNER
Fred D. Grimes
FDG:jss
copy: Mark Esbensen
Jack Raymond
John C. Baymond
P. O. Box 3295
Escondido, CA 92033-3295 U.S.A.
April 19, 1996
'd ............
Director of Planning
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Case No. PA96-0008: Hydroscape Products, Inc,
Gentlemen:
I am strongly OPPOSED to the above proposed development plan and I am amazed that
staff has recommended approval. North Jefferson Business Park, in which this project is proposed,
which would be greatly damaged by this proposed project dominated by a most inappropriate
outdoor storage area. It is incompatible to all of the surrounding uses, depreciates property values
of nearby properties, and represents unsound land planning and use.
The use proposed belongs more appropriately in an industrial park area or at least away
from quality office and commercial uses.
Please be advised that as an investor in the Jefferson Creek Center I will suffer economic
harm and damages if this project is approved. We assert that there is significant environmental
harm which may ensue and that not all environmental impacts have been appropriately considered
or reviewed. We contest the negative declaration determination on numerous grounds, including
but not limited to traffic impacts, incompatible uses, storage of potentially toxic chemicals, and
adverse economic impact on surrounding properties.
· I urge immediate rejection of this plan and proposal.
cc: Lounsbery, Ferguson, Esquire
John C. Raymond
FIRST PACIFIC
AcYrn/nzstrat/ve Offices.' 613 W. Vafley Parkway, Escondz~lo, Ca/florn/a 92025-2597 (619) 74 1-3312 FAX.' (619) 74 1-7381
April 25, 1996
Mr. Stephen Brown
City of Temecuta Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
DECEIVED
APP, 2 9 1996
Ans'd ............
RE: PA 96-0008 (DEVELOPMENT PLAN)
HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS, INC.
Dear Mr. Brown:
I am in receipt of the Notice of Public Hearing coBcerning the proposed development referenced above.
I represent First Pacific National Bank which owns the existing high-quality bankIoffice building located
adjacent to the proposed development as well as the two lots now being developed into additional parking
and available parcels next to the bank.
We are strongly opposed to the proposed development for the following reasons:
The use is incompatible with the surrounding development in North Jefferson Business Park,
which includes our property. It is immediately adjacent to office buildings, medical office
buildings, a high-quality retail center and similar uses. The proposed use is clearly an industrial
use.
The proposed use will have a high concentration of outside storage. According to the site plan
that I have reviewed, the building consists of 9,994 square feet with outside storage of 27,830
square feet. The storage yard is the predominant use. This is not compatible with the
surrounding existing development of office/medical building and retail centers.
In s~amary, we believe that the proposed project will adversely impact surrounding properties. We
request that this proposed project be denied on the basis of its incompatibility with surrounding uses.
Thank you for your consideration.
Executive Vice President/COO
MJP:jff
FAMILY ENTERPRISES
4607 MISSION GORGE PL., SAN DIEGO, CA 92120 - TEL.: (619) 287-8873 - FAX (619) 287-24
April 22, 1996
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, Ca. 92590
Re:
Hydroscape Products, Inc.
Plot Plan Development Plan Submittal No. PA96-0008
To Whom It May Concern,
We own 41593 Winchester Road and 27315 Jefferson Avenue, which are located one lot
over from this proposed use. We feel Hydroscape is a great company but it's use does not
fit into an office and retail park. As you know most of the office and retail projects in this
park have been given back to the banks. As one of a handful of owners that have hung
in here the last thing we need is to compete with other projects in Temecula that have
outside storage next to their building.
Let's bring Hydroscape to Temecula but in the appropriate place, not in an office park.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
E,TERPR SES
Brian R. Caster
Chief Executive Officer
ITEM #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director
DATE:
May 20, 1996
SUBJECT:
Planning Application No. PA95-0140 (Rancho Baptist Church). A request to
revise conditions of approval to Plot Plan No. 625 to allow three temporary
modular buildings to become permanent and to construct a new two story
building to be used for classrooms.
Prepared by: Craig Ruiz, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution No. 96-__ approving PA95-0140, Second Revision to Public
Use Permit No. 625, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report; and
FIND The Proposed New Two-Story Building to be in Substantial Conformance
with the Second Revision to Public Use Permit No. 625; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA95-0140, Second Revision to Public Use
Permit No. 625, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND
This item was continued by the Planning Commission at their meeting of March 4, 1996. The
resolution from the March 4, 1996 Staff Report has been modified to reflect the continuance
action taken by the Commission.
ANALYSIS
When this item was previously before the Commission, there were two primary issues regarding
this request. The first issue related to the temporary modular buildings (Existing Modular Units
"A" "B" "C" on Exhibit A). Under the conditions of approval for Revised Public Use Permit No.
625, the modular units were to be removed by May 20, 1994. The applicant is requesting that
they be allowed to remain permanently.
Concerns have been raised by both the surrounding property owners and the Commission
regarding the aesthetics of these structures. At the previous meeting, the Commission
discussed providing landscaping to screen this view from the south. To address the
Commission's comments, the applicant has proposed to add landscaping to this area, (See
Attachments 3 & 4).
To further address the visual impacts, the staff has added Condition of Approval No. 10 to
require the applicant to provide a permanent "skirt" at the base to match the rest of the unit.
Also, staff has added Condition of Approval No. 11 to require the applicant to provide a
cornice detail on each modular to provide additional visual relief. Staff feels that the
landscaping, skirting and cornice detail will adequately address aesthetic issues.
The second issue related to the proposed additional modular buildings. Concerns were again
expressed by the surrounding neighbors and the Commission relating to the aesthetics of
additional units. The applicant has since revised their application to remove their request for
additional modular units. The applicant has revised their request to allow for a two-story,
approximately 7,000 square foot permanent building. The previous approvals allowed for the
construction of two, two-story classroom buildings plus a one-story administration building
totaling 7,799 square feet. The new proposed building would be located in substantially the
same location as the three approved buildings. The applicant will provide additional landscaping
beyond what is shown on the approved site plan (See Exhibit B and the enclosed Approved Site
Plan). Staff's feels that the new proposal substantially conforms to the previous approvals and
therefore requires no further review.
In addition, the Commission asked if the additional of buildings would require additional
bathroom facilities. The applicant will provide bathrooms in the new building. Lastly, the
Commission asked if the existing modular buildings would require new building permits as a
result of becoming "permanent" structures. When the applicant applies for building permits,
the modular buildings will be required to meet the April 1, 1994 accessibility requirements.
Attachments:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
PC Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 3
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 7
Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 4, 1996 - Blue Page 11
Proposed Landscaping for Modular Buildings "B" & "C" - Blue Page 12
Proposed Landscape Elevations for the Modular Buildings - Blue Page 13
Proposed Landscape Elevations for the New Building - Blue Page 14
Proposed Site Plan - Blue Page 15
Previous Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 16
R:\STAFFRPT~I40pA95,]F~2 ,~/14/96 klb 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
R:\STAFFRP'B140PA95.PC2 5/14196 }fib 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA95-0140, SECOND REVISION TO
PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 625, TO REVISE CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW THREE TEMPORARY
MODULAR BUrLDINGS TO BECOME PERMANENT AND
TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO STORY BU~.r}ING TO BE
USED FOR CLASSROOMS LOCATED AT 29775 SANTIAGO
ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-
130-017
WHEREAS, Rancho Baptist Church fried Planning Application No. PA95-0140 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
~, Planning Application No. PA95-0140 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WFIEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA95-0140
on March 4, 1996, at a duly noticed public heating as prescribed by law, at which time interested
persons had an oppormhity to testify either in support or in opposition;
WHEREAS, at the public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, the Commission continued the item to a
future Planning Commission meeting;
WttF, REAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA95-0140
on May 20, 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;
WHEREAS, 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. PA95-0140;
NOW, THE~REFORE, ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
R:\STAFFRPT\140PA95.PC2 5/14/96 klb 4
Section 2. F_iadiagi That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. Pursuant to Section 18.29, no Public Use ::'rmit may be approved unless the
applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrim..:,tal to the health safety and welfare
of the community, and further, that any Public Use Permit approved shall be subject to such
conditions as shall be necess~ to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
B. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA95-0140,
makes the following findings, to wit:
1. Planning Application No. 95-040, Public Use Permit is consistent with the City's
General Plan due to the fact that the proposed addition to the church is consistent with the General
Plan Land Use designation of Public Institutional.
2. The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets all the
requirements of Ordinance No. 348.
3. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health
or general welfare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria prescribed
under Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.10 and 18.29.
4. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the
use does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area and the
use is compatible with the surrounding residential and public uses.
5. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to
the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies with State
Planning Laws.
6. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that
the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348.
7. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated fight-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and connects
with Santiago Road.
8. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not
in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project
as represented on the site plan.
C. As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA95-0140,
Second Revision to Public Use Permit No 625, as proposed, is compatible with t!~c health, safety
and welfare of the community.
R:XSTAFFRl~I40pA95.PC'2 5/14/96 klb 5
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Assessment prepared
for this project indicates that project is determined to exempt for the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Planning Application No. PA95-0140 to revise the conditions of approval for Public Use Pennit
No. 625 to allow the three tempomxy modular buildings to become pennanent and to construct
a new two story building to be used for classrooms located 29775 at Santiago Road and known
as Assessor' s Parcel No. 922-130-017, and subject to the following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a
part hereof.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May, 1996.
Linda Fahey, Chairman
I It~EREBY 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 March,
1996, by the following vote of the Commission:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRPT\140PA95.PC2 5/14/96 klb 6
ATTACHMENT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~STAFFRPl'\140PA95.PC2 5/14/96klb 7
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA95-0140, Second Revision to Public Use Permit No. 625
Project Description: To revise the conditions of approval for Public Use Permit No. 625
to allow three temporary modular buildings to be permanent and to construct a new
two-story building to be used for classrooms
Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-130-017
Approval Date: May 20, 1996
Expiration Date: May 20, 1997
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. 95-0140, Second
Revision to Public Use Permit No. 625, to revise the conditions of approval to allow the
addition of three modular buildings and to allow three temporary modular buildings to
become permanent to be used as class~0oms
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. PA95-0140, which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations
period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seo.,
including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall
promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought
within this time period. City shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action.
Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, developer/applicant shall
not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City,
any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents.
No additional structures shall be placed upon the site, nor shall any permits be granted
until such time the wall along the southerly property line is completed and approved to
the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Chief Building Official.
Planning Application No. PA95-0140, shall comply with all Conditions of Approval for
the underlying Public Use Permit No. 625 and Revised Public Use Permit No. 625 unless
superseded by these Conditions of Approval.
R:\STAFFRIrI~140PA95.PC2 5114196 ltlb 8
This approval shall be used within one (1) year 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 one (1) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated
by this approval'.
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit "A" approved
with Planning Application No. PAgS-0140, or as amended by these conditions.
Landscaping shall conform substantially with Exhibits B & C, or as amended by these
conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit "C" or as amended
by these conditions.
Within 60 days of the approval of this project, the applicant shall provide all landscaping
as shown on Exhibit C.
10.
Within 60 days of the approval of this project, the applicant shall construct a permanent
skin at the base to match the rest of the unit. The design of the skirt shall be approved
by the Planning Manager.
11.
Within 60 days of the approval of this project, the applicant shall provide a cornice
detail on each modular to provide additional visual relief. The design of the cornice
detail shall be approved by the Planning Manager.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits
12.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
No new conditions.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
13.
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).
14.
Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with
Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
15.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any
construction work.
16. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations
(California Disable Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
17.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the
1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
18.
Modular buildings shall be approved and permitted for their intended use by the State
of California, Department of Housing and Community Development.
OTHER DEPARTMENTS
19.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance
No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated February 14, 1996, a copy of
which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:\STAFFlLPTH40PA95.In22 5114196 Idb ][0
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED MARCH 4, 1996
R:\STAFFRPT\I40PA95.PC2 5/14/96 ~b ] ]-
RECOMMENDATION:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 4, 1996
Planning Application No.: PA95-0140,
Second Revision to Public Use Permit No. 625
Rancho Baptist Church - Santiago Road
Prepared By: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner
The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning
Commission:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
ADOPT Resolution No. 96- approving PA95-0140,
Second Revision to Public Use Permit No. 625, based
upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report; and
APPROVE Planning Application No. PA95-0140, Second
Revision to Public Use Permit No. 625, subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
Rancho Baptist Church
William York
Revise conditions of approval to Plot Plan No. 625 to
allow three temporary modular buildings to become
permanent and to allow three additional modular buildings
to be used for classrooms
29775 Santiago Road
SP (Specific Ran)
North: SP (Specific Plan)
South: VL (Very Low Residential)
East: SP (Specific Plan)
West: SP (Specific Plan)
Church
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
BACKGROUND
North: Residential
South: Residential
East: Church
West: Day Care Center
Public Use Permit No. 625 and Variance 1512 were approved on August 16, 1988 by the
Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The Permit allowed for a church and related structures
totaling 19,250square feet. The approved variance relieved the project from the requirement
of constructing a block wall along the property lines adjacent to the residential uses. Chain
link was approved as an alternative.
On May 20, 1991, Revised Public Use Permit No. 625 was brought before the Planning
Commission to request the addition of three modular buildings as temporary classroom
facilities. The City of Temecula Planning Commission aiDproved this addition with the
stipulation that the church was to remove the three temporary trailers within 36 months of the
approval of the Revised Permit (May 20, 1994). In addition, the applicant was to construct
a permanent block wall on the south side of the property adjacent to the residential uses, also
within 36 months of the approval of the Revised Permit.
On January 20, 1994 the Planning Department received a complaint from a neighbor whose
property abuts the church on the southwest side regarding the lack of a block wall. On May
2, 1994, staff met with the Church's representative to discuss the conditions of approval.
As an alternative to the wall, the Church proposed placing slats in the existing chain link fence
and adding additional landscaping to further screen the parking lot from adjacent property
OwrlerS.
Because staff and the applicant were unable to resolve this issue, staff sought direction from
the Commission at their August 1,1994 meeting. It was the Commission's direction that the
church should not be granted additional relief from the conditions of approval. It was the
Commission's further direction that the conditions be enforced.
ANALYSIS
At the DRC meeting on January 18, 1996, the applicant was informed that staff would not
support their request, due to the absence of the wall. On January 29, 1996, the Church's
representative received a building permit to allow for construction of the wall. While the wall
is not complete, the applicant has informed staff that it will be completed within the next 30-
60 days, weather permitting.
With regards to the addition of a three modular buildings, staff does not believe the buildings
will impact the surrounding properties. The buildings, both existing and proposed, are located
approximately 400 feet from Santiago Road. In addition, the buildings will be screened from
public view by either parking lot landscaping, the existing sanctuary or by structures on the
adjacent property to the west (see Exhibit A). The buildings will not be visible to residences
to the south due to the construction of the wall, the elevation difference between the
properties and the distance between the residences and the structures. The properties to the
east and west, a church and preschool, should not be impacted due to the fact that they are
similar uses.
The applicant has begun work on the wall, and anticipates completion in a timely manner. In
addition, staff feels that the modular units will not impact surrounding properties. Conditions
of Approval require that the building of the wall must be complete prior to the placement of
any new modular building on the site or the issuance of any new permits (see Condition of
Approval No.3), For all of these reasons, staff supports the applicant's proposal,
FINDINGS
Planning Application No. 95~040, Public Use Permit is consistent with the City's
General Plan due to the fact that the proposed addition to the church center is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Public Institutional.
The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets all the
requirements of Ordinance No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
general welfare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria
prescribed under Ordinance No. 348, Sections 9.10 and 18.29.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the use
does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area
and the use is compatible with the surrounding residential and public uses.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the
fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies
with State Planning Laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to
the fact that the proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No.
348.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and
connects with Santiago 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 as represented on the site plan.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 4
A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 8
Planning Commission Minutes - May 20, 1991 & August 1, 1994- Blue Page 11
Public Comment Letter - Blue Page 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO.
A'I'FACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA95-0140, SECOND REVISION TO PUBLIC USE PERMIT
NO. 625, TO REVISE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW
THE ADDITION OF THREE MODULAR BUILDINGS AND TO
ALLOW THREE TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS TO
BECOME PERMANENT TO BE USED AS CLASSROOMS
LOCATED AT 29775 SANTIAGO ROAD AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 922-130-017
WHEREAS, Rancho Baptist Church filed Planning Application No. PA95-0140 in accordance
with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by reference;
V~-IEREAS, pJann~ng Application No. PA95-0140 was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA95-0140 on
March 4, 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;
WHEREAS, 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. PA95-0140;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE 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. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following
findings:
A. Pursuant to Section 18.29, no Public Use Permit may be approved unless the
applicant demonstrates the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the
community, and further, that any Public Use Permit approved shall be subject to such conditions as shall
be necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
B. The Planning Commission, in approving Planning Application No. PA95-0140,
makes the following findings, to wit:
Harming Application No. 95-040, Public Use Permit is consistent with the City's General Plan
due to the fact that the proposed addition to the church center is consistent with the General Plan
Land Use designation of Public Institutional.
R:~TAI~TXI40PA95.PC 2/28196 v~/ 5
The proposed project is consistent with Ordinance No. 348 since it meets all the requirements of
Ordinance No. 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or general
welfare of the community due to the fact that the project meets the criteria prescribed under
Ordinancu No. 348, Sections 9.10 and 18.29.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because the use does not
represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area and the use is
compatible with the surrounding residential and public uses.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the fact that the
proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies with State Planning
Laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the
lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due w the fact that the
proposed development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by,
vehicular traffic due to the fact that the interior circulation is suitable and connects with Santiago
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 as represented
on the site plan.
As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, pinning Application No. PA95-0140,
Second Revision to Public Use Permit No 625, as proposed, is compatible with the
health, safety and welfare of the community.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Environmental Assessment prepared for this
project indicates that project is determined to exempt for the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act per Section 15303.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula PIning Commission hereby approves
Plnnnlng Application No. PA95-0140 to revise the conditions of approval for Public Use Permit No. 625
to allow the addition of three modular buildings and to allow three temporary modular buildings to
become permanent to be used as classrooms located 29775 at Santiago Road and known as Assessor's
Parcel No. 922-130-017, and subject to the following conditions:
hereof.
Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part
Section $. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 4th day of March, 1996.
CHAIRMAN
R:~ST.d~I40pAg$.PC 2/28~6 vgw 6
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temeeula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th day of March, 1996,
by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
DEBBIE UBNOSKE
SECRETARY
ATTACHMENT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA95.0140, Second Revision to Public Use Permit No. 625
Project Description: To revise the conditions of approval for Public Use Permit No. 625
to allow the addition of three modular buildings and to allow three temporary modular
buildings to become permanent to be used as classrooms
Assessor's Parcel No.: 922-130017
Approval Date: March 4, 1996
Expiration Date: March 4, 1997
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Requirements
The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. 95-0140, Second Revision
to Public Use Permit No. 625, to revise the conditions of approval to allow the addition of three
modular buildings and to allow three temporary modular buildings to become permanent to be
used as classrooms
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 Second Revision to Public Use Permit No. 625, 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 promp~y 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.
No additional structures shall be placed upon the site, nor shall any permits be granted until such
time the wall along the southerly property line is completed and approved to the satisfaction of
the Planning Director and Chief Building Official.
Planning Application No. PA95-0140, shall comply with all Conditions of approval for the
underlying Public Use Permit No. 625 and Revised Public Use Permit No. 625 unless
superseded by these Conditions of Approval.
This approval shall be used within one (1) year 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 one (1) year period which is thereafter diligen~y pursued to completion, or
the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval.
6. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit *A" approved with
Planning Application No. PA95-0140, or as amended by these condkions.
7. Elevations shall conform substantially with exhibit 'B", or as mended by these conditions.
Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit "C" or as amended by these
conditions.
Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy PermRs
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by
this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
No new conditions.
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAF~rf
10.
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
Disatned access regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code (1994 editions due for adoption
by December 199~.
11.
Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance
No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution.
12.
Obtain all building plan and permit approvals prior to the commencement of any construction
work.
13.
All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations (California
Disable Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994).
14.
Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991
edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C.
15.
Modular buildings shall be approved and permitted for their intended use by the State of
California, Department of Housing and Community Development.
OTHER DEPARTMENTS
16.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546
and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated February 14, 1996, a copy of which is attached.
I have read, understand and accept the above Conditions of Approval.
Applicant Name
R:~rAFFRPT~I40PA95.PC 2/2g/96 vZw ~ 0
City of Temecula
r~~~~slness Park Drive · Temecula, California 92590
6946444 · Fax (909) 694-1999
February 14, 1996
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
PLANNING DEPARTiM~.NT
CRAIG RUIZ
PA95-0140
With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire
Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with
Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards:
The existing water mains and fire hydrants will provide sufficient fire protection for the
proposed land division.
Prior to the issuance of building pennits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot
as mitigation for fn'e protection impacts.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to
submit a plan check fee of $582.00 m the City of Temecula.
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.
Install panic hardwaxe and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code.
Low level exit signs shall also be provided, where exit signs are required by section
3314(a).
Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified
extinguisher company for proper placement.
Prior to f'mal 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.
7. 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.
8. All buildings shall be constructed with fn'e retardant roofnag materials as described in
The Uniform Building Code..~my wood shingles or shakes shall be a Class "B" rating
and shall be approved by the fire department prior to installation.
9. The existing shed in fLre department turnaround shall be relocated prior to the issuance
of any building permits.
10. Final conditions will be addressed when bullfling plans are reviewed in the Building and
Safety Office.
11. Please contact the Fire Department for a final inspection prior to occupancy.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Department
Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439.
RAYMOND H. REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
by ~>,~..~>~
Lattra Cabrat
Fire Safety Specialist
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
FROM MAY 20, 1991 AND AUGUST 1, 1994
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 20, 1991
GARY THORnHILL requested that a motion be made to continue Item 14
to the meeting of June 3, 1991.
COMMISSINER FORD moved to continue Item No. 14 to the regular
Planning Commission meeting of June 3, 1991, seconded by
COMMISSIONER FAREY.-
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
10. PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 625 (REV.)
10.1
Request to allow Rancho Baptist Church three (3) On Site
Temporary Trailers. Located at 29775 Santiago Road,
Temecula.
OLIVER MUJICA provided the staff report.
C~IRMAN CHINIAEFF opened the public hearing at 6:15
P.M.
JIM CARPENTER, Pastor, Rancho Baptist Church, 30933
Loma Linda Road, Temecula, provided a brief history
of the church.
JERRY TEDDER, 37797 Calle De Lobo, Murrieta, provided
background on the development of the church and the
phasing of construction.
DAVID CARPENTER, 41169 Vintage Circle, Temecula,
representing Rancho Baptist Church, requested that
Condition of Approval No. 14 be waived.
RICHARD BKAGGS, 29497 Rancho California Road, #675,
Temecula, requested clarification of where the proposed
improvements were going in at the church site and added
that he had no problem with the proposal.
BARBARA HUGHES, 44278 Cabo Street, Temecula, spoke
against the approval of the temporary trailers due to
insufficient screening between her property and the
church grounds.
BOB HINZ, 44264 Cabo Street, Temecula, spoke against
the appproval of the temporary trailers, also due to
PCMIN5/20/91 -2- MAY 24, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 20, 1991
insufficient screening between the residential property
and the church.
STEVE JIANNINO advised the Commission that when the
original Public Use Permit was approved, a Variance
was approved deleting the requirement for a screen
wall for the entire project.
COMMISSIONER FORD suggested to the applicant that
temporary screening be placed and permanent screening
be in place prior to phase 2 construction, with Planning
staff working out the details with the applicant.
DAVID CHRISTIAN stated that they would be willing to
work that out with staff.
GARY THORNHILL added that the project could be
conditioned to have a Fermanent screen wall in place
prior to occupancy of the phase two structure.
JOHN CAVANAUGE advised the Commission, as well as the
applicant, that if the applicant wishes to contest the
amount of the development fee (Condition No. 14), they
may do so, by appealing the imposition of the fee at
the City Council level.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing
at 6:50 P.M. and Adopt Resolution 91-fnext) approving
Public Use Permit No. 625 (rev.), subject to the
Conditions of Approval as submitted by staff, modifying
Condition NO. 14 as presented by the Assistant City
Attorney and adding a condition requiring that the
temporary trailers be painted to match the existing
building, a maximum of S6 months approval on the use
of the temporary trailers, and temporary screening
of the chain link fence to include wooden slats and
landscaping, with the construction of a block wall
with construction of Phase Two, seconded by COMMISSIONER
BLAIR,
After COmmission discussion, COMMISSIONER FAMEY amended
her motion to require the temporary screening of the
chain link fence be in place prior to occupancy of the
trailers and the permanent block wall be constructed
within 36 months of approval of the PUP, seconded by
COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Hoagland, Chiniaeff
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
PCMIN5/20/91 -3- MAY 24, 1991
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 1, 1994
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on
Monday, August 1, 1994, 6:08 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District's Board
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Steve Ford presiding.
PRESENT: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Ford
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer
Also present were Planning Director Gary Thornhill, Assistant City Attorney Greg Diaz and
Senior Planner Dabble Ubnoske.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
COMMISSION BUSINESS
1. Approval of Aaenda
It was moved by Commissioner Fahey, seconded by Commissioner Hoagtand to
approve the agenda.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer
2. Staff Direction on Public Use Permit No. 625 Revised - Rancho BaDtist Church
Senior Planner Dabble Ubnoske presented the staff report. She explained the
applicant is currently in violation and a minor change must be flied to amend the
condition of approval to give the applicant some additional time to construct the
block wall. She said if the Commission does not approve the extension of time, the
church would be cited for non-compliance and the applicant would be told to
construct the block wail and follow through with the Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Hoagland said he feels the applicant should construct the wall.
Gary Thornhill said the City would follow the normal procedure for zoning violations
if they do not satisfy their conditions of approval.
PCMIN08/01/94 1 09123/94
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
AUGUST 1, 1994
Commissioner Fahey said she is not in favor of granting an extension of time to the
applicant.
Chairmen Ford said he would like to see the applicant construct the wall with a time
schedule. He clarified the Commission's direction would be to enforce the public
use permit.
3, Review Capital Improvement Prooram (CIP), for Consistency with the General Plan
Senior Planner John Meyer presented the staff report.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner :ahey to
approve staff recommendation and Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 94-
27 "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DETERMINING THAT THE CITY OF TEMECULA'S 1994-1995 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED CITY GENERAL
PLAN"
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Salyer
Direct Staff to Deny PA94-0063 for A Forty-One Foot Six Inch (41 '6"0) Hioh, One
Hundred Twenty-Two (122) Souare Foot Freestandino Freeway Oriented Sion for
Toyota of Temecula Valley
Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan presented the staff report.
It was moved by Commissioner Hoagland, seconded by Commissioner Fahey to
direct staff to deny Planning Application No. 94-0063 for a forty-one foot six inch
(41 '6") high, one hundred twenty-two (122) square foot freestanding freeway
oriented sign for Toyota of Temecula Valley
Chairman Ford asked if the applicant's existing sign was removed and this sign
placed, would staff view the request differently.
Assistant Planner Matthew Fagan said yes.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Hoagland, Ford
PCMIN08/01194 2 09/23/94
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PUBLIC COMMENT LE-FrER
R:'6~TAFFRF~I40pA95.ttC 2/2g.n)~ vgv/ '[ 2
)
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. -
EXIHRIT -
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA
VL
EXHIBIT II - ZONING MAP
~n~SiGNATION ,
HIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN
.,SIGNATION -
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PROPOSED LANDSCAPING FOR MODULAR BUILDINGS "B" & "C"
R:\STAFFRPT\140PAgI.PC2 5/14/96 klb 12
TREES PLANNED FOR RBC LANDSCAPING
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Fraxinus Velutina
Prunus Cerasifera
"Krauter Vesuvjus"
Cupaniopsis
Anacardioides Or
(Cup. Ana. "Multi")
Pittosporum Tobira Var.
COMMON NAME
Modesto Ash
Flowering Plum
Carrot Wood
Mock Orange
REMARKS
Fairly fast growing and
drought tolerant
Darkest of Flowering
Plums
Evergreen, moderate
growth, drought resistant,
can stand alkaline and
poor drainage soils,
Broad dense shrub or
small tree
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ELEVATIONS FOR THE MODULAR BUILDINGS
R:\STAFFILPT~140PA95.PC2 5/14/96 Idb ] 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ELEVATIONS FOR THE NEW BUILDING
R:\$TAFFRFI~140pA~5.PC2 5114196 Idb
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
R:\STAFFIL°T\I40PA95.PC2 5/14/96 klb 15
/.
~T
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFP, PT~I40PA95,PC2 5/14/96 klb 16
?~tncho E~tptist Church
F, O. D,~zr =D ,_
To_mecu;a, CA 923?0
PUBLIC USE PEF~T i~O. 625
Project Description: To build a Cnu-zh
and facilities
;Jsessor's Parcel T~c.: ~22-130-017
Area: P~nchc California
Zne pa,.-r~i=tee shall defeud~ indemnify, and hold ha_~nless the County of
Rivefolds, its agents, officers, and employees frTz any claim- act!col or
,~-ccaeding against The County of Riverside or its agents, officers, Dr
tm_~loy?es to ~ttack~ set aside~ void, or annul, an appzeval of %he Ccunty
cf Riverside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body
concernlag Public Use Permit Yo. 625. '~rne County of Riverside ~'ill
Fr?mDt!y notify the pe_-mittee ef any such claim, action, or proceeding
a~ains% the County of Pdverside and will seeporate fully in the defense.
~f the County fails %o promptly notify ths pe~ittec of any such claim,
aetlon or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defenFe, the
oq~i~tae shall no%, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or
hc!j hn_~iesz the County of Riverside.
!-.is a~?rova! shall be used ~,ithin tvo ~-7 years of appr-~':c-I date;
e'lha,'?!se it shall become null and void and -= ~c effect whac~oc"er* ="
us~ L~ mlan% ~he beginning of substant-lal construc'cion c~ntemplated by
;>-" s. rorovai ~,f_thin the *~m (2) year D-floP ~nich is thereadler
dili?ar;tlF pursued to cor, pletion: or the be~innin~ of ~ublt~ntic!
utilization contemplated by this sparova!.
7~c dsveF_orment of the --om~s~ shall ccnfczn substantiaii,' ~!th that az
$nc~m en clot ~ian ~nrl:ed E:~ibit * Amd /:1 or as c~u-~d b'.' these
c2rdizions.
l? the event tT:e USe hereby p:raitted ceases operation for ~ Farlad of one
· ,_, ycsr or more~ this '77 .... ~' shall ~ ..... o. ull and vcld,-
/~'i' cutslde lightinS shall be hooded =nd dirsc'aed so as not Zc shine
directly uDcn .adjoining property or public riS?!ts-of-vay,
5. ~h~_ april,isn't shall comply ~-_'=h ~he street Im. provement recor.mcnda[ions
~'.'tli~?d in ~- County Road Deoartmant transmitta! dated "-" !6 1988.
~ .. - , , ;~7 , .
ce~,- of wl I h
n c is P. ttacbed.
Fcge 2
17.
13.
U_--tar and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed tn accordance
rith 'the provisions so: forth iu the Riverside Couuty Health Department
tran~itta! dated Fay 16, ~o88 a copy of which is attached.
Flood protection shell be provided in accordance with the Riverside County
Flood Contrc! District traDsmittal dated Parch 8, !988, a copy of xX~ich is
attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance ~.th the appropriate
sect!ca of Ordinance 546 and the County Fire Wardears transmittel dated
~rch !, 1988, a copy of which is attached.
The ap?!icant shall comply ~th the recommendations set fcrtb in the
Department of Building and Safety trangmlttal dated March I1, !988, a copy
of vhich i~ attached.
F!en'_~.nS ~,ithin ten (!0) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall nat be
ul_--a_i~ted to grub- higher tha~ thirty (30) inches.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, 6 copies of a Lighting~
?encing~ Sheding~ Parking, Landscaping and irrigation Plan shall be
gu~mitted to the Plannin~ Department for approval. The location, number,
genus, species and container size of the plants shell be sho~c. Plans
shall ~eet all requirements of Ordinance ~4~, Section !8.12.
Prier te the issuance of occupancy pe~,ts for Phase i of the project, all
P"~^' ~ D~-~"rn~ as sho~-n on Exhibit "D"~ -h$11 be completed.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy petquits for Phase iV of the przject,
Phase IV -a-'~:-~ as eho~-~.,, on ~xh<b4t '~", shell be completed,
Prior tc the issuance ef occupancy per~z~its for Phase i of the project, all
~o ~-c and ' '
nc Phase i tanescaping shall be completed as sho~ on Emhlbit
?riot tc the issuance of occupancy permitt for Phase II of the project,
~' These iT ]a.-,dscapin~ sh~il be corn ie~ed
~-- p as shod,m, on Ezhibi% "F",
Pr'icr 'to the issuance of occupancy permits for Phase iii of the project,
al~ ?b~ iii landscaping shale be cer~p!etcd as sho~ca on Er/~Ibi~ :'F:l.
Prior to the issuance cf occupancy permits for Phase iV of the projects,
til Phi, so IV landscaping shall be completed as oho~. on Exhibit "~".
,'_ ti~i~':m of 306 perking cpcces sh~l! be provided in accordance k~tb
Secttop ~8o12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 306 parking spaces
r:ha!l he provided as sho~m on the Approved Exhibit A, Amd. #i.
20.
22.
parkin area shall be surfaced ~-lth aspbaltic centrate paving g _
depth cf 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base.
m~nim', cf six (6) handicapped parking snaces shall be provided as z~c,wn
on Exhibit A, ~zd. #i. F. aeh parking space reserved for the handiaap?~d
sh~ be identified by a permanently affixed reflectcrized
e ual, displaying the
canstrutted of porcelain on steel, beaded text or q
International Symbol of Accessibility. Tne sign shall not be sms!ier ~hen
70 ~quare inches in area and shall be centered at the interior en~ cf the
parking SpaCe at a ~_inimum height of 80 inches from the bet%o= c~
tc the parking space finished grade, cr centered e% a minimum
height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, grcund~ or
zide~;a!k. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at etch
entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than i7 inches by 22
inches ~ size uith lettering not less %ham 1 Inch in hei~t w~ich
aT=t-Iv a~d congplcueusly states the fc!ioring:
"bnzuthorized vehicles net displaying distinguishing placards
license plates issued for physically handicapped perscns may be towed
z~zy at e~er's expense. Towed vehicles may be reziaimed at
or by teiephcnin~
addi%ic~ to the abcve requirements, the surface cf ~cb D~-b~-~ ~lace
have z surface i~= ~tifi "tlon ~ ~uplicating the s~tbe! of
~'~"~" in blue Paint Of at ieas~ ~ scuare feet iP size.
Prier tc the issuance of z ~ 'd permit, applicant ebtain
b"i! ins the _ shall
Envirsnnemta! Health
Riverside County Flood Canttel
Fire Departz~nt
7tittea c'yi~cnce cf ccmp!icnce shall be presence<~ 're tile Land Ur.z D:_,-f. zicn
the Department cf BuildinS and Safety.
Buiidi~g eiovaticns shall be in substantial confomsnce ~!th that shox-= on
Z~ibit g.
.................... os shall ba in
zvbs'~zntlal ccnfo~ance ~:ith that show?. on Exhibit B (Celor E!eva=icns)
--~ Exhibit C Q~terials Board). These are as fs!imrs:
Roof MDnier Roof Tilt
Triz
Burnt Tetra tetra
#!0 Omega
Cinnamon ~0 Semi-trams
26.
27.
Nc roof-mountod equipment shall be permitted en any buildin~ ~ thin the
project site.
Prior to the final building inspection approval by the Building and Safety
depar~mcnt, a si~ foot high chain link fence shall be constructed a!cng
the southern property ilne adjacent to lots zoned P~A-i and along
~estern property line adjacent to the playground, as shown on Exhibit
The required chain link fence shall be subject to the approval of the
Director of the Department of Building and Safety and the Planning
Director.
Lanescape screening shall be designed to be opaque up to a md. nimum height
of s~: (6) feet at maturity, and shall be planted along the chain link
fence.
This project is located ~ithin a Subsidence Reporz Zone. Prior to the
issuance of a~y building permit by the Riverside County Department of
Building and Safety, a California Licensed Structural Engineer shall
cartif7 that the intended structure or building is safe and structurally
integrated. Tats certification shall be based upon, but not be limited
no, the site specific seismic, geologic and geotechnical conditions.
i.?-.ere hazard of subsidence or fissure development Is determined to exist,
a~pre~riate mit!~ation measures must be demonstrated.
The prsper~y is located ~thin thirty (30) ~'_LilcS Of Mount Palsmar
Observatory.-. Light and glare may adversely impact operations at the
obss~atcrD/- C~tdoor lighting shall be minimized, especially during the
late night and early morning hours. All outdoor lighting shall be fro~
Icv pressure sodium lr, mos that are oriented and shielded to prevent direct
i!luminsticn above the horizontal plane passthE through the !u~inaire.
Cu~ ~I) trash enclosure ~ich is adequate to enclose a total of two (2)
~in? shaI] be centrally loca~ed v.'_thin the project, and ~hall be
constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. ~ne enclosure
shall be six feet in height and shall be made ~!th ~2son.-y b!ozk and a
late ~iich screens the bins from external view.
'~' ~T.~. ---~ ~, rec.~r~ c~i! ~e orcvided in conyonion ~
~','~ ,' ,~ bicycle
Locations to facilitate bicycle access tc the project area.
~ ........ and ...... . .~.c. that PhDse shall have been installed and be in
;, condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safely. rr,~e plants
?5-~t-------------------~n., shall be prcper!y constructed and in good ~rking order.
utilities. except electrical lines ra%ed
.~.nstal!ed underground.
All ~-indow glass in the ca~c-ur-v shall be L inch '~'
....... . .... ~_,. as mi'~i~a%icn for
noise as suggested in the acouztica! analysis report doted F~rch 2~ lqEE.
~il of the foregoing con~.itions shell be complied %Ith prior to occupancy
cr any use allowed by this per%_it.
OFFICE O; R,S,,~D CO~,!' i;Z;'E,:,'E,C S ,.. ..... SL'RWE':'O;~
i6, lc~BB
:C3' L?-on Szreet
(Church}
PU 625
Team I -
Gentlemen:
t,~ ..4- · ,., · ·
.... , respect 'co t;,~ oor, dl~Ions of approval for the above referonset item,
......... , ,.~S ~h~ 'Sol ~.. :
agerc2':
!ssuanc~ of a buildino permit cr any use allowed by this permit, the
sha~: comDiet~ the ~oiio,.'ing conditions at no cos% to any '='overnmenz
T
7-1, ,.~_,,ional rigXt c'F ,':aS' shall be ..... '-^~ I!n San%ia,~o P, oad
s~nz? adeeuzte richtcf w~,, e;:ists.
the Oeveloper Shall oeposi~ ~,~b tnc Riverside Count}.' Ross
T:~'Isr~m~n'L the sum of SI,OSO.CO %owa"s2 m~i~s~in~ zraffic
for signal requirements. (4.15 acres x SSO0 = S2,083.G0)
PU 525- A~end
,May !6, !e88
At! entrance driveways shall be channelizss[ ~:it~ concre:e
and gutter to prevent back on parking anc inue:'ier
entering/exiting driveways for 6 minimum
measured from face of curb. Titis will rest!it
parking space.
ham rcvie~ed '-h~ Public Use Pcr:~it irz, i2f.
F~hruary 25, 1988. Our currcnt cc~.2ntz
jZ: bc
;.ivcrsidc County
"anr'~n? Deg~:rtm2nt
"~,'-"v ~*'~i~i,+-~t~,,,e Center
~ ......... ','o~ :~uisance .~ u.~ local runofT ,,.:i~ich B[y traverse 9~'-~icn': oF thr_
s~'aperty the project is considered free from ordinary sto~ flood hazard.
:<o',-:a'~'er, a storm of unusual magnitude could c~.use some damage. [,:~h' construe-
.,... . ~ , applicable ordinances.
Th-~ topopr~:'-.i~y o~ the area consists of ~eli defincd ridges eat' natural
cp'zrses ,.:ilich traverse !-.he property. Tha~a is adeq=~ta are:-:
n,-,turai vaLer:o-'-'rses for building sites. ~i~e natural t~t~rcaurses sr, ould be
kept free of building_= and obstructions in order to maintain the
c~:'~in.-:2.,a ~z'ttarns of the area and to prevent field damage %e nmz buiisjin~.
?. has9 sh:~'id be placed on an en;'ironmental constraint sheet st~_ting, "All new
5ui!dings shall be floodproofed by elevatin~ the Finished floors a minimum
17 ~nohes above adjacent ~round surface. Erosion pro:action shall be ~ravided
for mobile hGms supports.'!
ibis :--"- is ' tl~e
r',"~"nr, n.,'- 'ion f-=es shall ~ pai~ in apsar~anse ~dth the applicable r'ul~s and
repu! at ions.
zoning is c;nsistent ~iti; exi~tin~ flood haz;rds. Some flood
f:siiities or floodproofing ~ay ba required tc full? develop to the
~'~c' 'is s'l';il c~ren~ SoY ti~is p:':ject
/
does not objapt to the proposed minor
~=pc, ~ ~=
Saiif,~rnia
r'~'.";~-;~d this case and hays the foil~::in~
f~r nuls~nce Da%L'rB local runoff '~:~Ech m~" 'L:'a'~',z~s~ ;zr':i:s~ -" "--
DrCjSCt csnzid~red free '/ra;n oralinJury stsrm flood :',a~.'~
the . is ......
z. :form sf unusual magnitude could ~ause SgTF'~
ShzuiC' zorn:PlY ~';ith -~' mp~!icable ~rdir. anc~s.
7;.::: t-~.ozr==h,· ::r th~ era2. consists of well dsflned r~d:es and P--.t,;'--i :.:~tDr-
caurses t.~hich traverse th~ D"aD~'tv T~rs is odequote ~rea outside
r,~turc! ~-'at~rcaurses for buildin~ altos. The natural watercourses
',~=~';' free o'g ' "~ ' ~b't~',' f' n -~-~-'- the natura~
;ui id.ngs ana ~ ~ ~c.~o, s in ardor -~n
cirzinae~ D= ns of the area and to Dryvent flood dam;oe to n=~ buildings.
, ~tter. . _ ....
A nots zhould ~e placed an an envlron~,ental constraint sheet stating,
~:i!dir.,_~s shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors
ia ins;~es above adjacent ground surface. Erosion Drote~tisn sh~ll be
f~r ~a)ile h~me supports.~
" ' , ..... Z~ shai: be Daia
The -~'~^.'-/ ..... · .... ~,..:...!.~p. flood hazards. Some flood
sent'tel faziliti~z or f!c:d~rcofin~ riay be rcGulre~ to fully dayslop to the
is still curfeet for th~s project.
':'::3 .O,:::"~ct (ozs not ob~cct to 't:n3 proposed Frincr
Very 'h:'uiZ' yours?
· -r.' ...... ~'~ ~ ncw dcveiopmcnt c,~us~-s increase! ~'~,~r-~
i~cc:5 ir, 2re~c~m ~r~ p~rtisziar!y trc~!~scme
"fr:~r'_ .'~ F. rca Dz'~in~ge Plan has bash adopted. in order
~n_i 'Zha i~..nstre~r impacts brought abou~ ~-;- in=z'aased Fc. ntf:l.
V' -~z--~.,'.. rcccD~en~s "-~ ~nii~4~al
· .i~ %1<. C'i, iTr~'S ~'~ ~'C'~r='~ ~l~ fee
:u .l.cw;l~? :lz' ':;hs Diz-;.r.].='~ ? rcs_-r_menda"_iom:
' flc:Cl :!:'.'hi~=_'ti~n c~h.nr=q? rhal! be .~aie. T..hz charge rr!-Ll!
q~'j;.1 'zl~:~. yrzv~iJ_in? Area Dz-,~.inage Plan fee ra't~ multii.;,iief
.?y '11~- zraL~ cf new ~ev,Ti~pment. .Th,% ne~,~ ~levelopmen~ in ';kiz
time z'7 :~- cf S T5 ~ m~z' azz-e, thz miti{a';:.on
, ~' ~' charca is m~rablc '~ uhs
....... .r
f. rt;' iraina.Te Plan fee cr mi'~igation charge ha3 already
:refiitr.:~ t~ ~-~=- ~ro~zrtv. no new charce ~eeds ~ be
PU 625 - ~J~.'DID ~;1
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIKE DEPAK_~.ENT
~N COO'~F, RAT!ON WITH THE
LAY HE~.RAKD
3-1-88
With r~spcct to the conditions cf approval regarding the above refereneei ~ica
y]en, the Fire Department recom~mends the following fire prote;tion measures
>~ ~rcvided in accordance with Riverside Count}' Ordinances and/or reso~n~sed
· f:rz 2rotaction standards:
l-
The Fire Department is required to set a minimu~m fire flow for remodel
cr ccnstrocticn of all conetrial buildings using the procedure estabiished
i? Ordinance 5~6.
Provide cr show there exists a water system capable of de!iverln~
f~r a 2 ~,'~ duration at .v residual operating Oressure which ~ust be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
A combination Of on-site and ofc:-sjte super fire h}'drant~, on a locp~d
system ~6"x~"::2½x2~), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than
!6~ fe~ from any portion of the building as measured along apprcved
vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be avaiiabie from
anF ddjacent hydrant(st in the system.
The required fire flow may be adjusted at a later point in the per~,.it
process re reflect ohan~es in design~ construction type, area separation
cr built-in fire protection measures.
=~mDlican~/develouer shall furnish one copy of the v;ater system clans to
Fire Deportment for revifw. Plans shell conform to the fire hydrant
-zY--, l~caticn Spacing, enf, the system shall meet the fire f!ov
requirem3nts. Plans shall be signed/approved by a r~istcred engineer
tb~ lace! w:ater c rapany with the followin~ certification: ,,T certify
.... o _ _
that the desi~n of the water system is in accordance with thz requirements
Tryscribed k.y the Riverside County Pire Depar'~.ent."
Znacel! a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings requiring a
fire flow of 15~9 GPM or greater. The port indicator valve and fire
d2;arL~ent coDnection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a
he'drant. ~nd a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that
the, building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered -~..ust be inc!udc~
cn the title page of the bui/~ing plans.
Unifc_-m. B~i!dirq C~de.
T. ~D.~.-'v ~'ith Title iS of ~be California AA_--,in~%"alivu
install pani~ hardvare anf exit signs as per Chapzer
LulldinS Code.
In3~s3.! a manual pull; smDke de~estion sy~cm
Lu!idi~g Cede and Ne. tiDna! Fire Protcction
Znztal! pcrtabl~ fire exzinquishers ~='itb a mini~lL~ ratin~ cf 2i--lCS2.
Cr;n'ra~'~ ~zrzi:Tied ~::tin?ui~her cozp~U for
_2. lnz'~ai! a hood ~u~t fire e::tin~ui~hin~ rystc,n~.
Prior t~ "ahc issuancz o~ buiidin~ ~e~itce the developer ~nall dl:pcai~
Buildin[ and Salary-
ALL ..... ~s z~-=-~4-- ~-h~ ~.eanin~ of the ccn~itionc shall
t~_ Yirz Dcpa:.rt'.~nt Pj. amnin~ an~ En~ineerin~ s~aff.
David Wahl=ten
=.~ ~ Exhibit A, ~mended ~I
.'_.~in~ *"" ' "' - '~,Se
if '~zi3 proposed project is '~o be "phased!', e,n af,,prc',;ed
e;rhibi'2 indicatin~ ',-~hich structures and on-zitz
K],zr:zs arc resulted for each "Phase" DRcu/d be
2rf. cz- '_-c thz issuance of buildin~ permits, written c2.~ar-
z, nre is r,zcuired from the ~oZlowin9 school dis'~ri~tz:
Elginore Union Hi.~h Scboo! Districz
Tzmecula Union School District
CITY OF TEMECULA
~'\
CONDI\~IONS OF APPROVAL
Public Use Permit No:
Project Description:
625 { Rev. )
3 Temporary Trailers as
Sunday Classroom
Facilities
Planninq Department
Not withstanding the use of this revised permit, all Conditions of Approval for
Public Use Permit No. 625 still apply.
Shrubs shall be planted or placed (where applicable) at the perimeter of each
unit, a minimum of five {5) gallon size, spaced at 36" on center, prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for any portion of Phase II, all
temporary structures shall be removed from the site.
Placement of the units shall be subject to the issuance of permits from the City
of Temecula Building and Safety Department.
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide proof of
clearance from the following:
City Planning Department
City Engineering Department
County Fire Department
County Flood Control District
Enclineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the
developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
A: PUP625
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
- Planning Department;
Engineering D artment;
Riverside CouP; Health Department;
CATV Franchise; and
Parks and Recreation Department.
The developer shall submit two (2) prints of a comprehensive grading plan for
the area surrounding the trailer pads to the Engineering Department. The
plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be
additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be
drawn on 2u,"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Depar'cment prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
No grading shall take place prior to the improvement plans being substantially
complete, appropriate clearance letters and approval by the City Engineer.
10.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion
control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be
submitted and approved by the Engineering Department.
11.
All site plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and street
improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency with approved plans.
12.
The subdivider shall post security for grading and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the improvements in conformance
with applicable City standards.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
13. Construct all improvements per the approved plans and permit.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities
imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public
facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer, Developer understands that said agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
A:PUP625 10