The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About081996 PC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 19, 1996, 6:00 PM Rancho California Water District's Board Room 42135 Winchester Road Temecula, CA 92390 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Fahey ROLL CALL: Fahey. Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak and Webster PUBLIC COMMENTS Commissioners about an item not I sled on the A~,end t, t link "Requt.'sl to Speak" tbFm:~(~n~ be ~lled.~t C()~ItlISSI( I:n~ironlnenl;tl X('liain: Planner: Recommendation: I~;X')6-[tl41) IRevise '['entazive Pa~'cel %!;i p 24085) . Vt ,',st of I)iaz Road, NOT'LIt or ,X~cnida I)c % t, nl as R,.vi~'k~.utative Parcel M~i, ~4()8~. Rednre site number of lots h'om 62 to IO. I{,.a,hq}liml ofetisfifag %egalnr I)ccla:al.ul Stephen Brown ~ Approval 4. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: Planning Application No. PA96-0132 (Conditional Use Permit - Fast Track) Jan Weilert Front Street, immediately south of the Jan Weilert RV Center To construct a 20,500 square foot building for RV and Boat Sales and Service Mitigated Negative Declaration Matthew Fagan Approval R:',WIMBERVGXPLANCOMMx, AGENDAS%8-19-96.WI'D 8/14/96 klb s. Case No: Applicant: Location: Proposal: Environmental Action: Planner: Recommendation: PA96-0043 - General Plan Land Use Map Amendment No. 2 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 1; and changes to statistical tables in the General Plan Land Use Element City Initiated Reference Attached Tables To make a number of amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map, Zoning District Map and to change the Statistical Tables in the General Plan Land Use Element. Recertify General Plan Environmental Impact Report Dave Hogan Approval 6. Case No: City-Wide Design Guidelines Applicant: City of Temecula Location: City-Wide Proposa,: T.e G..ide.nes w., be ose. io the L,?,,"s: and approval of commercial.r . development in Temecula. They will be nscd I6'~rovide direCti~;n , '~ to persons in the development coonnnnitv ~ith.tbc/iilnimun~ ~ ~ .; development standards io e<Tilv . .. Phmner~ ........ : ...... ~Craig Ruin/~ I'I.ANNING C~ i'MISSIO~4}ISCUSSION " " /~ v ./ ,! ,,' // / / ,' .. .. OTllER IIL'SINFSS i ~ //' ' ' / / ": '~ ~temher 2 1996 ~0~'tlnR is cancelled'du~.h~ tl~e holiday. A m~ting /" / / iS scheduled for Septe nber ~. 1996/ / · ,.. ./: / ..' ., .I ,' .,.' ~o ' ' ~n~ / . ., .," ,' ,, ~ ~-- .____." ,.."/..,'/. .. ] ~: .... .... ~..:.~J,' R:\WIMBERVG\PLANCOMMXAGENDAS\8-19-96.WPD 8/14/96 klb 2 ITEM #2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1996 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission was called to order on Monday, August 5, 1996, 6:09 P.M., at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Chairman Fahey presiding. PRESENT: ABSENT: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster None Also present were Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske, Assistant City Attorney Rubin D. Weiner, Principal Engineer Steve Cresswell, Senior Planner Dave Hogan, Senior Planner John Meyer and Minute Clerk Patricia Kelley. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chairman Fahey called for public comments on non-agenda items at 6:10 P.M. Wanda Faille, 30219 Sierra Madre, spoke regarding an article in the August 2nd issue of "The Californian" concerning the Arco AMIPM Beer and Wine License approval. The article stated that the Commission had no alternative other than to approve the matter since Arco was one of the few beer-serving businesses in the area and would contribute to public convenience. She researched the 2.2 mile area of Winchester Road from Jefferson Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road and found six businesses selling liquor ~- four are 24-hour convenience stores; one, a food store; and one, a membership wholesale store. She asked how many businesses does it take to meet the definition of public convenience and stated a supermarket would be far more desirable and convenient. Chairman Fahey closed Public Comments at 6:12 P.M. COMMISSION BUSINESS 1. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the agenda. The motion carried as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: 0 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster None None 2. Approval of June 17. 1996 Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Miller and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve the minutes of June 17, 1996, with the following amendments: PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5. 1996 Top of Page 5, Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske is to review the tape to determine if the motion to continue the request for a monument sign or if the applicant withdrew the monument sign request. Page 3, add the architect was asked to provide additional elevations from the freeway perspective and also to provide a cross section of the streetscape. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Slaven 3. Beer and Wine Criteria Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated the City of Escondido Alcohol Ordinance was distributed on an information only basis. She informed the Commission of a public workshop regarding beer and wine criteria being held Monday, August 12, 1996, City Hall Main Conference Room, Temecula at 6:00 P.M. Peter Thorson, City Attorney, will be present to review legislation and the City's responsibilities in this area, and to provide direction for the Commission in determining a definition for public convenience or necessity. Commissioner Slaven stated she would like the staff and City Attorney to consider the followin the Monday night meeting: consistency of operational hours; advertisement display limits; _. inconsistency between market and gas station employees allowed to sell alcohol as delineated in the informational ordinance. Chairman Fahey clarified that the Commission does not review beer and wine licenses; it makes a finding of public convenience or necessity. The presented ordinance was developed by the City of Escondido over a two-year period and was done to address specific problems. Chairman Fahey stated she is unable to attend the Monday night meeting. Hopefully, the meeting will define and clarify the term public convenience or necessity and if time allows, the Commissioners could explore the idea of an ordinance. Director's Hearing Case Update There were no questions or clarifications requested on this item. Planning ADnlication No. PA95-0047 (Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan) Senior Planner Dave Hogan stated that this item is a continuation from the July 15th Planning Commission meeting. It is a continued public hearing to allow representatives of the development community and the public to provide testimony and/or attend. Staff is recommending that the Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan and set the appropriate mitigation fee cap. Commissioner Slaven reiterated her understanding that this is a cap; it is not a set fee for each house. PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5, 1996 The fee is dependent on the number of children and availability of other funding for each specific development. Mr. Hogan stated that was correct. The fee cap will apply only to those projects that receive legislative entitlement; i.e., general plan amendments, specific plans, zone changes, development and annexation agreements. Existing developments are not covered by this Plan. Commissioner Miller asked if this also excluded property zoned residential that did not require a zone change to develop. Mr. Hogan replied that was correct, nor does this Plan apply to property which is rezoned consistent with the general plan. Commissioner Soltysiak inquired about agricultural property in the wine country area on 5-acre parcels. Mr. Hogan answered, if property adjacent to the city limits came in for annexation and the General Plan indicates suburban density, property would be rezoned without falling under this Plan. If it was an annexation or development agreement issue and required a zone change to increase density, the cap would apply. Chairman Fahey called for Public Comments. There were no requests to speak. Dave Gallaher, representing Temecula Valley Unified School District, came forth to answer any questions. Commissioner Miller asked why there was a change from using a square foot figure to a unit basis. Mr. Gallabet replied that the school district was comfortable with either -- it is only a paremeter. Whether a square-foot, or a flat-fee-per-home measurement is used, the entire development's average does not exceed the $9,21 3 cap. Commissioner Miller asked if statistics show whether a 3 bedroom/1 story house versus a 6 bedroom/2 story house have the same number of students. Mr. Gallaher replied that there is not a direct correlation between the number of children and the size of the house. Commissioner Slaven inquired how long this cap agreement will be in place. Mr. Gallaher answered that the district does not plan to return to the County or City for a long time. There is a reevaluation clause in the Plan in case additional funding sources become available; not for cap readjustment. Commissioner Soltysiak asked if the developer gave property costing less than $108,000, would the cap be adjusted. Mr. Gallaher responded that site cost is a fixed component of the $9,213 cap and even if property is received, that cost remains at $108,000. In the building of the last few schools, the $108,000 was established as a real cost for property complete with infrastructure, grading, and clear of all assessments and liens. Commissioner Miller inquired if land price is more than $108,000, would the cap increase. Mr. Gallaher replied that the Plan does not allow for flexible land prices; if it did, the fee amount would float. The $108,000 figure has been used successfully in individual agreements with many developers. Commissioner Soltysiak stated it is his understanding that the fees are dedicated to the district and not used in other areas of town and asked if that provision is stated in the Mitigation Plan. Mr. Gallaher responded that he believes there are statements to that effect in the Plan; certainly there are such statements in signed agreements. PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5. 1996 Commissioner Soltysiak inquired about adding a provision for the School District to work with Temecula CSD or the City to jointly develop properties such as support facilities and parks. Mr. Gallaher stated that is written in general terms in individual agreements, and can be added to the Plan. Chairman Fahey closed the Public Comments at 6:45 P.M. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to adopt Resolution No. PC 96-_ recommending that the City Council approve the Temecula Valley School District's Residential Development Facilities Impact Mitigation Plan and set the appropriate mitigation fee cap. Commissioner Soltysiak asked for clarification with respect to joint participation for public facilities and that the issue be incorporated into the Plan. Commissioner Miller stated the cap fee and sharing of facilities to fulfill the recreational needs of the city are two separate issues. Commissioner Slaven said that when plans come in, the Commission has the opportunit', to look at how these facilities interact. Chairman Fahey also stated a strong recommendation could be sent to the City Council to support agreements containing a statement that encourages joint use of facilities by school and park districts whenever possible, but a statement to that effect is not appropriate for the Mitigation Plan. Mr. Hogan will communicate Commission's concerns to the City Council either in a staff report or by verbal presentation. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Miller, Slaven, Soltysiak, Webster NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None 6. PA96-0008 (Develooment Plan) Commissioner Slaven explained that since she has listened to the taped July 15, 1996 Commission meeting and read the minutes, she is ready to participate in the matter tonight. Chairman Fahey reported she has met with the applicant since the July 15 meeting. Senior Planner John Meyer stated the Commission had before it a resolution for approval and one for denial for construction of an office and warehouse facility located at 41581 Enterprise Circle North. If the Commission wished to approve the application with direction to the staff regarding architectural matters, that would be appropriate. Commissioner Slaven stated she met with the applicant at the site two weeks ago and discussed the wall, landscaping, the amount of storage on the property, and the entryway design. In her opinion, if the 8-foot wall is constructed, some landscaping must be done to avoid graffiti. This application "= submitted under Ordinance 348, accepted, and the project must be considered under that cri, She would like the following conditions added in order to make this proposal fit the location: PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5. 1996 Entryway to be dealt with in an architecturally sound manner so it is an integral part of the building, and allows no awnings. Development Code, Commercial Section, Page 29 shows several entryway treatments. The landscaping to remain as dense as it is shown; the wall between Jefferson Court Center and this property is to have sufficient vine and wall-climbing plants so as to discourage graffiti. Chairman Fahey expressed concern that the 8-foot wall is excessive. After revisiting the site, she thinks 6 feet with landscaping is adequate or 8 feet in the back, stepped down to 6 toward the street, with treatment on the top of the wall that matches the building. The storage area will be visible from the second and third stories of the office building, regardless of wall height. Commissioner Slaven inquired about the thickness of the wall. After hearing Steve Cresswell's answer of 8 inches, she stated that would leave room for a cap on top. Commissioner Miller asked Chairman Fahey if she is talking about a 6-foot wall at line of sight or from the curb. Chairman Fahey stated she means 6 feet from the curb where the parking lot is located. Commissioner Webster stated that in a meeting with the applicant at the site, it was agreed that Hydro-Scape would place an 8-foot wall above finished elevation of the paved parking. Commissioner Soltysiak asked how adequate screening is defined. Commissioner Webster responded that adequate screening is to provide line of sight relief at ground level, not second or third-story views. Chairman Fahey stated that the grading on the other side of the building where the storage is makes an 8-foot wall inappropriate. She asked if the staff had any suggestions? Mr. Meyer suggested that the effective height of the wall should be measured from the east side of the property generally from the top of the asphalt pavement. Commissioner Slaven asked if it was possible for staff to determine the appropriate height during field inspections. Mr. Meyer replied that since it is going to be a tilt-up wall, the applicant needs to know the required height for their building permit/structural plans. Commissioner Slaven asked if the wall will be sandblasted and textured to match the building. Mr. Meyer stated the Commission could make that a condition. Commissioner Miller stated he cannot support the project because it is incompatible; it does not fit on this site in this neighborhood. Commissioner Slaven mentioned the comment of one of the Jefferson Court owners regarding truck traffic going in and out of Enterprise Circle North. Possibly some agreement between Hydro-Scape Products, Inc and the Jefferson Court tenants can be made regarding semi-trucks using that area for egress and ingress. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Webster to approve this plan per staff recommendation with the following conditions: The wall to be 6 foot with enhanced landscaping, vines, shrubs and other plants at staff's discretion, on the east side facing Jefferson Court. PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5.1.Q~:~ The wall to be given the same treatment, i.e. sandblasted and textured, as the building with a finished cap on top; Landscape plan as submitted at the last meeting is accepted which provides for a wall of trees and for landscaping along the back and west sides; Hydro-Scape will post signs prohibiting semi-trucks from using the Jefferson Court parking lot for ingress and egress to Jefferson Road. o The entryway to the building to fully comply with the Development Code (no awnings). Commissioner Webster noted that No. 12 of the Conditions of Approval requires submittal of revised landscape plans. Has this condition been met? Mr. Meyer replied that Condition No. 12 was written based on the revised plans. Staff believes there is still need for some revision on the south side of the building and additional landscaping along the wall. Mr. Meyer stated that at the July 15 meeting, the following upgrade requirements, which are not listed in the Conditions of Approval, were discussed: o Storage limited to the hatch area as shown on site plans; o No razor wire incorporated on perimeter fencing; o No storage materials shall be stacked higher than the wall. Commissioners Slaven and Webster amended the motion to include the above conditions into the motion on the table. Commissioner Miller asked that "An automatic gate be installed and kept closed at all times" condition be added. Commissioners Slaven and Webster accepted the above condition into the motion on the table. Commissioner Soltysiak requested that prior to the issuance of grading permits, the fault line be located in the field and setbacks shown on the plan. Mr. Cresswell replied that applicant is required to prepare a soils report which should address the faulting on the site. Under Condition 43, a soils report is required by a registered soils engineer, but a condition could be added requesting a geological report, prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer, be submitted for issuance of grading permits and that report will locate the fault. Commissioners Slaven and Webster accepted the above condition into the motion on the table. Mr. Meyer clarified that it was the intent of this action to go with a chain link fence on the north side, augmented with landscaping as is typical further west of the property. Commissioner Miller asked that to vote in the affirmative, one must find as factual Resolution Sect 2, No.4 -- "As conditioned pursuant to Section 4, Planning Application No. PA96-0008 (Development PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 5. 1996 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." Mr. Meyer replied yes. Commissioner Webster stated that everything after August 5, 1996 in the Resolution's fourth WHEREAS should be deleted. The motion carried as follows: AYES: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Slaven, Soltysiak NOES: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Webster ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Planning Manager Debbie Ubnoske stated the scheduled September 2 meeting falls on the Labor Day holiday and there is a fairly heavy agenda for the September 19, 1996 meeting. Therefore, the Commissioners need to determine whether or not a September 30, 1996 meeting is in order. The Commissioners agreed to establish a September 30, 1996 meeting, if needed. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Miller stated that he would like to suggest that the press be invited to the Monday night meeting on beer and wine criteria. There is a great deal of public interest in this issue and the public needs to be knowledgeable on the Commission's limits on approving/denying applications. It was moved by Commissioner Slaven and seconded by Commissioner Miller to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried. The next meeting will be held August 19, 1996, at 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California. Linda Fahey, Chairman Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary ITEM #3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 19, 1996 Planning Application No. PA96-0140 (Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 24085 Amended No. 2} RECOMMENDATION: 1. 2. 3. Prepared By: Stephen Brown, Project Planner The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: READOPT the Negative Declaration for Tentative Parcel Map No. 24085; and ADOPT Resolution No. 96- approving PA96-0140, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report; and APPROVE Planning Application No. PA96-0140, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Westside City I, LLC HLC Civil Engineer To revise a previously approved parcel map to reduce the number of lots from 62 to 10 and 1 remainder parcel. West of Diaz Road and north of Avenida De Ventas L I ( Light Industrial) North: L I ( Light Industrial)) South: L I (Light Industrial) East: OS-C (Conservation), B P (Business Park) West: L I (Light Industrial) Not requested B P ( Business Park) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant R:\STAFFRPTXI40PA96.PC 8113196 klb SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Vacant, Temecula City Limits Mixed Industrial Uses Murrieta Creek Bed Vacant, Temecula City Limits PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Number of Lots: Project Density: Earthwork Amount: Cut: Fill: 72,6 acres gross 10 lots and one remainder parcel N/A 370,000 cubic yards 370,000 cubic yards BACKGROUND Planning Application No. PA96-0140 was submitted to the Planning Department on June 28, 1996. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on July 18, 1996. Planning Application No. PA96-0140 was deemed complete on July 30, 1996. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is a ten (10) lot Schedule E revised parcel map on 72.6 acres. The site is currently vacant. The applicant has requested the change due to market demand for larger industrial lots. The project is a logical extension of development. Professional Hospital Supply recently completed construction of a 260,000 square foot building on adjacent parcels to the south. Vacant land surrounds the site on the north, west and east. Murrieta Creek is located easterly across Diaz Road. ANALYSIS Site Design & Area Compatibility The proposed revision is well designed and is laid out in a logical pattern. Parcel Number One is proposed to be a golf equipment manufacturing plant with a product testing facility (driving range). A application for the development project is expected within 60 days, Access to the entire site is proposed to be from Avenida De Ventas ( proposed to be renamed Zevo Drive) and Remington Avenue (a new street along the northern boundary of the map). Access will be restricted from Diaz and Winchester Roads. Winchester Road (west of the site) and Remington Avenue (north of the site) have not been constructed. Diaz Road and Avenida De Ventas have been partially constructed. The applicant has proposed to record the map in four phases. The phasing plan is logical and meets City requirements. Lot sizes are generally in the three to five acre range with the exception of Lot One which will be 18.86 acres and intended to accommodate Zevo Golf. R:\STAFFRPTX140PA96.PC 8/12/96 klb 2 LandscaPing The conditions of approval require that landscaping along the surrounding roads be consistent with the existing street scape conditions in the area. A master conceptual landscape plan will be required for the entire subdivision prior to development of Phase I. Grading and Drainage Currently, the site has varied topography. Slopes dominate the western portion of the Tentative Map, while the eastern portion of the site is level, The applicant is proposing to balance the grading on site by mass grading the entire property. Site drainage will be primarily from the west to the east with the flows entering Murrieta Creek on the properties easterly boundary. Circulation/Traffic A cumulative traffic study was prepared for the area west of Diaz Road and north of Winchester Road by Robert Kahn John Kain & Associates, Inc. The cumulative traffic study includes the area of covered Tentative Parcel Maps 24085, 24086, 25139 and 25408. The Level of Service (LOS) at affected intersections will be LOS "D" or better during peak hours for the entire study area. Based upon the analysis contained in the cumulative study, the project is consistent with the Goals of the City's General Plan Circulation Element. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is BP (Business Park) . The zoning for the project site is LI (Light Industrial). The project is consistent with the both the Zoning Map and General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Study was prepared for the original Parcel Map and a Negative Declaration was adopted during the approval process in 1993. The Initial Study determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, these effects were not significant because of the mitigation measures contained in the project design and Conditions of Approval for the project. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission readopt the previous Negative Declaration and accompanying mitigation measures. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan, Subdivision, and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development will occur to City Standards. FINDINGS The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Business Park. The R:\STAFFRPTX140PA96.PC 8112196 klb 3 project proposes ten (10) industrial parcels and one remainder parcel on 72.6 acres. This is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for the site. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan, Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances. The project is consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development will occur to City Standards. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. The project will take access from Avenida De Ventas (Zevo Drive) and Remington Avenue ( a proposed street), and will not obstruct any Planning Application No. PA96-0140 as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Attachments: PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Exhibits - Blue Page 20 A. Vicinity Map B. Zoning Map C. General Plan Map D. Tentative Tract Map R:~STAFFRPT\I40PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- R:~STAFFRPT~140PA96.PC 8/12/96 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0140 TO REVISE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24085 FROM 62 LOTS TO 10 LOTS AND A REMAINDER PARCEL GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF AVENIDA DE VENTAS (ZEVO DRIVE) AND WEST OF DIAZ ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-120-022 WHEREAS, Westside City 1, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA96-0140 in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0140 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0140 on August 19, 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, said Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA96-0140; 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. EizldjJlgi That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings, to wit: I. The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is Business Park. The project proposes ten (10) industrial parcels and one remainder on 72.6 acres. This is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's General Plan, Subdivision and Landscaping Ordinances. The project R:XSTAFFRPTX140PA96.PC 8112196 klb 6 is consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that the development will occur to City Standards. 3. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. The project will take access from Avertida De Ventas (to be renamed Zevo Drive) and Relnington Road, and will not obstruct any easements. 4. Planning Application No. PA96-0140 as proposed, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is cornpatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3, Planning Application No. PA96-0140, conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project couId 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. PA96-0140 to subdivide a 72.6 acre parcel into ten (10) parcels and a remainder parcel generally located west of Diaz Road, south of Remington Avenue, east of Winchester Road, north of Avenida De Ventas (Zevo Drive), and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-120-022, subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. R:\STAFFRPT\I40PA96.PC 8/12196 klb 7 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of August, 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 19th day of August, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRP'TX140PA96.PC 8/12/96 klb B EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRFTXI40PA96.PC 8/12/96 klb ~ EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. 96-0140 (Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 24085 Amended No. 3) Project Description: Assessor's Parcel No,: Approval Date: Expiration Date: A revision to Industrial Parcel Map No. 24085, reducing the number of parcels from 62 to 10 with I remainder, parcel 909-120-022 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 One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) 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 tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The developer/applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning Planning Application No. PA96-0140 (Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 24085) which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et see., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any R:\STAFFRPTXI40PA96.PC 8/12/96 81b I 0 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 developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Manager. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shal4. be provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Electrical lines rated 33kv or greater shall be exempted from the requirement to be installed underground. A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the Planning Manager, City Engineer and City Attorney. The CC&R's shall be signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed, shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City. The CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The CC&R's shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The CC&R's shall be prepared at the developer's sole cost and expense. The CC&R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Planning Manager, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents. The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City. The CC&R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation, management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas, drainage and facilities. The landscape and architecture standards shall be incorporated by reference into the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall provide that the property shall be developed, operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance. The CC&R's shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the condition required by the CC&R's, then the City, after making due demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and perform, at the owner's sole expense, any maintenance required thereon by the CC&R's or the City ordinances. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure any such expense not promptly reimbursed. R:\STAFFRPTXI40PA96.PC 8/12/96 klb 11 All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the association or other means acceptable to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted to the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of building permits. Reciprocal access easements and maintenance agreements ensuring access to all parcels and joint maintenance of all roads, drives or parking areas shall be provided by CC&R's or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrent with the map or prior to the issuance of building permit where no map is involved No lot or unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group, or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Prior to the approval of a grading permit, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Manager for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development and shall include the following: Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedimentation during and after the grading process. Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas which may be graded during the higher probability rain months of January through March. c. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations. d. Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase. A qualified archaeologist shall be chosen by the developer and approved by the Planning Manager for the purpose of conducting a stratified surface sampling of archaeological site CA-RIV 237. The archaeologist shall excavate 20 to 30 one cubic meter surface units to determine the depth, spatial extent, and significance of the site. Based on the results of these tests, the extent of further sampling and data collection will be determined. A qualified archaeologist shall also monitor grading activities and shall have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading activity to allow recovery of cultural resources. A Native American representative shall be present during archaeological R:XSTAFFRPTX140PA96.PC 8/12196 klb 12 testing and during grading and shall also have the authority to temporarily halt or divert grading activity. 10. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. A paleontologist shall be on- site to monitor grading operations. When necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of fossils. 11. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance, unless a receipt can be provided demonstrating that payment has already been made. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 12. The applicant shall submit the following to the Planning Manager for approval: a. A copy of the Final Map b. A copy of the Rough Grading Plans 13. Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety. 14. The following notes shah be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet: "This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655." "Archaeological and paleontological monitoring of grading is required, and summary reports shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits." "Part of the site is located in the 100 year flood plain of Murrieta Creek. Measures to remove the project site from the flood plain are listed in the Conditions of Approval." "The site is traversed by a potentially active earthquake fault. The map includes a restricted use zone in which no structures for human occupancy are allowed." R:\STAFFRPT\I40PA96,PC 8/12/96 kib 13 "The property is affected by earthquake faulting and ground fissures. Structures for human occupancy shall not be allowed in the Fault and Ground Fissure Hazard Area." "County Geologic Report No. 627 was prepared for this property on June 7, 1989 by Schafer Dixon Associates, and is on file at the City Planning Division. Specific items of concern are as follows: earthquake faulting, fissuring and ground subsidence, liquefaction, landsliding, and uncompacted trench backfill." Prior to Issuance of Building Permit 15. Composite landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. The plans shall address all areas and aspects of the map requiring landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to, parkway planting, street trees, and slope and site plantings. 16. The applicant shall submit a receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 17. If deemed necessary by the Planning Director, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. All conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. General Requirements 18. It is understood that the applicant has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 19. A Grading Permit for either rough or precise (including all on-site flat work and improvements) grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 20. 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. 21. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. R:\STAFFRPT~I40PA96.PC 8/12/96 klb 14 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Graded but undeveloped land shall be protected from erosion by either planting with interim landscaping or other erosion control measures as may be approved by the Department of Public Works, Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the applicant shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Rancho California Water District Eastern Municipal Water District Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District City of Temecula Fire Bureau Planning Department Department of Public Works Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Community Services District General Telephone Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company The applicant shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula General Plan standards unless otherwise noted: Improve Winchester Road (Major Highway Standards - 100" R/W) to include dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving (76' curb to curb), curb and gutter, street lights, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), sidewalk, raised landscaped and irrigated traffic safety islands, signing and striping. Improve Diaz Road (Major Highway Standards - 100' R/W) to include dedication of full-width right-of-way, installation of full-width improvements, paving (76' curb to curb), curb and gutter, street lights, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), sidewalk, raised landscaped and irrigated traffic safety islands, signing and striping. Improve Zevo Drive (Principal Collector - 78' R/W) to include dedication of half- width right-of-way, installation of half-width improvements plus six feet, paving, curb and gutter, street lights, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), sidewalk, signing and striping. Improve Remington Avenue (Principal Collector - 78' R/W) to include dedication of half-width right-of-way plus six feet, installation of half-width improvements plus six feet, paving, curb and gutter, street lights, drainage facilities, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), sidewalk, signing and striping. R:\STAFFRPTXI40PA96.PC 8/13/~ klb 15 27. 28. 29. Unless otherwise approved the following criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvements: 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 Standard No. 207A. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance No. 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works, Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113 or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 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. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through curb outlets per City Standard No. 301. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per Cal-Trans standards for transition to existing street sections, All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided for underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. A construction area Traffic Control Plan, where deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer, reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works for any street closure, detour or other disruption to traffic circulation necessary for the installation of the street improvements required pursuant to this map approval. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Winchester Road and Diaz Road on the Parcel Map. R:\STA]FFRPT',I40PA96.PC 8113196 klb 16 30. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 31. Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be required at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 805. 32. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the parcel map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." 33. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the parcel map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. The following information shall be shown on the ECS: a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain. b. Special Study Zones. C, Geotechnical hazards such as fault locations identified in the Geotechnical report for the project. 34. The applicant shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. 35. The property owner 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" or "Medians in accordance with the General Plan". The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney. 36. The applicant shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit: 37. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Parcel Map or the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for any work within their Right-of-Way. R:\STAFFRPT\I40PA96.PC 8113196 klb 17 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44, 45. 46, A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works, The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Soils 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. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer identifying storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of the out fall facilities. Upgrading or upsizing of those facilities, as required, shall be provided as part of the development of this project. The basis for design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed on adjacent properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. This 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, grading, improvement or otherwise, the Applicant shall comply with Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code, and make application for a Flood Plain Development Permit through the Department of Public Works. Prior to Issuance of Any Building Permits: 47. Parcel map shall be approved and recorded. R:\STAFFRFl'\140pA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 1 B Prior to Issuance of Certificate for Any Occupancy: 48. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: · Rancho California Water District · Eastern Municipal Water District · Department of Public Works 49. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 50. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 51. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPTXI4OPA9~.PC 8/13/96 klb I 9 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 EXHIBITS R:\STAFFRFT\I40PA96.PC 8/12/96 ktb 20 CITY OF TEMECULA ETA '-,~ \ / · \ ', SITE ' \ \ \ TEMECU LA CASE NO. - PA96-0140 EXHIBIT- A -PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 19, 1996 VICINITY MAP R:\STAFFRPT\I40PA96.PC ~/2/96 slb .7 CITY OF TEMECULA / / / EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - L I (Light Industrial) ' cc BP EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - B P (Business Park) CASE NO. - PA96-0140 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE -AUGUST 19, 1996 CC CITY OF TEMECULA CASE NO. - PA96-0140 EXHIBIT- D REVISED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24085 PLANNING COMMISSION DATE- AUGUST 19, 1996 R:\STAFFRPT\I40PA96.PC 8/2/96 ITEM #4 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION August 19,1996 Planning Application No. PA96-0132 (Conditional Use Permit - Fast Track) Prepared By: Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Planning Application No. PA96-0132; ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning Application No. PA96-0132; and ADOPT Resolution No. 96- recommending approving Planning Application No. PA96-0132 based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Jan Weilert REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Robinson PROPOSAL: To construct and operate a 20,512 square foot boat sales and repair facility and a reduction of one (1) required parking space LOCATION: West side of Front Street, immediately south of the existing Jan Weilert RV Sales and Service Facility EXISTING ZONING: SC (Service Commercial) SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: SC (Service Commercial) SC (Service Commercial) SC (Service Commercial) OS-C (Conservation) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: SC (Service Commercial) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.PC 8113/96 klb SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South: East: West: Recreational Vehicle sales and repair facility Vacant Retail Murrieta Creek PROJECT STATISTICS Total Area: Total Site Area: Building Area: Landscape Area: Paved and Hardscaped Areas: Parking Required: Parking Provided: Building Height: 2.2 gross acres/1.5 net acres 20,512 square feet 13,800 square feet 35,000 square feet Sixty-four (64) Sixty-three (63) Twenty-six (26) feet BACKGROUND A pre-application meeting was held for this project on May 28, 1996. The application was formally submitted to the Planning Department on June 25, 1996. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on July 18, 1996. The project was deemed complete on July 23, 1996. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is the design, construction and operation of a boat sales and service facility on 2.2 gross acres. The building will be twenty-six (26) feet high and 20,512 square feet in area. Access will be taken from Front Street and on-site circulation will tie into the existing facility to the north. The project is a Fast Track project and the grading plan and building construction plans have been submitted and are currently being reviewed by staff. The applicant is requesting the deletion of one (1) required parking space. ANALYSIS Site Design The project will take access from Front Street. The project has been designed to allow internal circulation between the proposed facility and the existing Jan Welleft RV Center. Boat display will be both inside and outside. The outside display area will be adjacent to the entrance to the showroom and service bays will be located to the rear of the building. Customer parking will be at the southern portion of the site. The applicant is requesting the deletion of one (1) required parking space. Since this will present a minimal impact to the overall parking requirements, staff is comfortable supporting this request. R:\STAFFRPTXI32PA96.lFC 8/14/96klb 2 Architecture The east and west faces of the building will be concrete masonry split-face block, designed to match the existing building to the north. The display portion of the building will be glass. The office portion will be split-face block and glass. The entrance to the building has been articulated by a canopy structure. Landscaeing Twenty-one percent of the site has been landscaped. This is consistent with the twenty. percent minimum landscaping requirement in the SC (Service Commercial) Zone. The front of the project has informal groupings of trees to allow for maximum visibility of the showroom area. A condition of approval has been added to the project for Sycamore and Oak trees to be used at the southwest portion of the site to tie into the existing vegetation at the Murrieta Creek. Meraer of Parcels The project is proposed to be developed across two (2) parcels (Parcels 3 and 4 of PM 17288). The applicant will be required to record a Certificate of Parcel Merger prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Certificate of Parcel Merger application has been submitted and is currently being reviewed by staff. EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The General Plan Land Use designation for the site is SC (Service Commercial). Existing zoning for the site is SC (Service Commercial). Boat sales and service facilities are permitted with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 17.04 of the Development Code. The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code 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 a Fast Track project and the grading plan and building construction plans have been submitted and are currently being reviewed by staff. The project has been designed to allow internal circulation between the proposed facility and the existing Jan Weilert RV Center. The project is proposed to be developed across two (2) parcels (Parcels 3 and 4 of PM 17288); therefore, a Certificate of Parcel Merger will be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. The project as proposed is consistent with the Development Code and the General Plan. R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8113196 klb 3 FINDINGS The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The project has been reviewed for consistency with these documents and Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the Goals and Policies contained within the General Plan and the Development Standards contained in the Development Code. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed use will not adversely . affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The project is consistent in terms of scale of development and uses (existing and proposed) in the immediate area. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. Staff has reviewed the project and has determined that the project is consistent with the Development Code. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project is consistent with the Goals and Policies contained within the General Plan and the Development Standards contained in the Development Code. These documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that projects are not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Compliance with these documents will assure this is achieved. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. PC Resolution - Blue Page 5 A. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 9 Initial Study - Blue Page 19 Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 37 Exhibits - Blue Page 44 A. Vicinity Map B. General Plan Map C Zoning Map D. Site Plan E. Landscape Plan F. Elevations R:\STAFFRFT\I32PA96.PC 8/14/96 klb 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 96- R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.pC 8/13/96klb 5 ATTACIIMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM/VIISSION OF TI-IE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0132, TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 20,512 SQUARE FOOT BOAT SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY AND THE REDUCTION OF ONE (1) REQUIRED PARKING SPACE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF FRONT STREET AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 922-110-018 AND 922-110-019 WHEREAS, Jan Weilert fried Planning Application No. PA96-0132, in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; V~IEREAS, Planning Application No. PA96-0132 was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WItEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA96-0132, on August 19, 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 conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA96-0132; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COIVIMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETER/VIINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct. Section 2. Eilldil!gi That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings; to wit: A. The proposed conditional use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The project has been reviewed for consistency with these documents and Staff has determined that the project is consistent with the Goals and Policies contained within the General Plan and the Development Standards contained in the Development Code. B. The proposed conditional use is compatible with the nature, condition, and development of adjacent uses, buildings, and structures and the proposed conditional use will not adversely affect the adjacent uses, buildings, or structures. The project is consistent in terms of scale of development and uses (existing and proposed) in the immediate area. R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96,PC 8/13t96 klb {B C. The site for the proposed conditional use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, buffer areas, landscaping, and other development features prescribed in the Development Code. Staff has reviewed the project and has determined that the project is consistent with the Development Code. D. The nature of the proposed conditional use is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The project is consistent with the Goals and Policies contained within the General Plan and the Development Standards contained in the Development Code. These documents were adopted by the City Council to assure that projects are not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Compliance with these documents will assure this is achieved. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this ease 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. PA96-0132 for the construction and operation of a 20,512 square foot boat sales and service facility and the reduction of one (1) required parking space, located on the west side of Front Street and known as Assessor' s Parcel Numbers 922-110-018 and 922-110-019, and subject to Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference and made a part hereof. R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 7 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of August, 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 19th day of August, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COIVIMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 8 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb ~ EXHIBIT A CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA96-0132 (Conditional Use Permit - Fast Track) Project Description: The design, construction and operation of a 20,500 square foot boat sales and service facility and the reduction of one (1) required parking space Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 922-110-018 and 922-110-019 Approval Date: Expiration Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT General Requirements 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 One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars (91,328,00) which includes the One Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar (91,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars (978.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) 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). The use hereby permitted by the approval of Planning Application No. PA96-0132 is for the design, construction and operation of a 20,500 square foot boat sales and service facility and the reduction of one (1) required parking space. 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. PA96-0132 (Conditional Use Permit). City shall promptly notify the developer/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding for which indemnification is sought and shall further cooperate fully in the defense of the action. R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 10 This approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with Exhibit D, as approved with Planning Application No. PA96-0132, or as amended by these conditions. a. A minimum of sixty-three (63) parking spaces shall be provided. b. A minimum of two (2) handicapped parking spaces shall be provided. c. Four (4) Class I lockers or Class II bicycle racks shall be provided. Landscape Plans shall conform substantially with Exhibit E, or as amended by these conditions. Sycamore and Oak trees to be used at the southwest portion of the site to tie into the existing vegetation at the Murrieta Creek. Building elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit F, or as amended by these conditions. Colors and materials used shall conform substantially with Exhibit G (color and material board), or as amended by these conditions. Material Bronze Anodized Storefront 1/4" Plate Glass (Windows) Paint (Accent) Concrete Masonry Split-Face Block Color Black Blue Vista Paint#57C-3D - Indian Turquoise Beige Color elevations shall conform substantially with Exhibit H, or as amended by these conditions. 10. Each of the required parking spaces shall be labeled "Customer and Employee Parking Only." No display, storage of inventory or storage of items being repaired shall be allowed in any of the required parking areas. Prior to the Issuance of Grading Permits 11. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. 12. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.pC 8/13/96 klb 11 Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits 13. A Consistency Check fee shall be paid. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. The applicant shall demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program have been satisfied for this stage of the development. Prior to the Issuance of Occupancy Permits 17. An application for signage shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Manager. 18. Roof-mounted equipment shall be inspected to ensure it is shielded from ground view. 19. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans. 20. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Planning Manager. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be property constructed and in good working order. 21. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 12 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. 22. 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. 23. 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. 2,$. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 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. This project is located within a subsidence or liquefaction zone. Prior to issuance of any building permit by the Department of Building and Safety, a California Licensed Soils Engineer or Geologist shall submit a report to the Building and Safety Department identifying the potential for liquefaction or subsidence. Where hazard of liquefaction or subsidence is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be demonstrated. 27. Comply with applicable provisions of the 1994 edition of the California Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Codes; 1993 National ElectYical Code; California Administrative Code, Title 24 Energy and Disabled Access Regulations and the Temecula Municipal Code. 28. Submit at time of plan review, complete exterior site lighting plan in compliance with Ordinance No. 655 for the regulation of light pollution. 29. All buildings and facilities must comply with applicable disabled access regulations (California Disabled Access Regulations effective April 1, 1994). 30. Provide house electrical meter provisions for power for the operation of exterior lighting and fire alarm systems. 31. Restroom fixtures, number and type, shall be in accordance with the provisions of the 1991 edition of the Uniform Plumbing Code, Appendix C. 32. Provide an approved automatic fire sprinkler system. R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8/13t96 klb 13 33. Provide appropriate stamp of a registered professional with original signature on plans submitted for plan review. 34. Provide electrical plan including load calcs and panel schedule, plumbing schematic and mechanical plan for plan review. 35. The occupancy classification of the proposed use shall be B/S-3 OR H-4. 36. Provide disabled access from the public way to the main entrance to the building. 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 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrotogic and hydraulic calculations shall submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. 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 copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their Right-of-Way, 42. 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. R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96,pC 8/13/96 klb 14 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 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 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. The Developer shall have a Drainage Study prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City Standards identifying storm water runoff expected from this site and upstream of this site. The study shall identify all existing or proposed public or private drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. The study shall also analyze and identify impacts to downstream properties and provide specific recommendations to protect the properties and mitigate any impacts. Any upgrading or upsizing of downstream facilities, including acquisition of drainage or access easements necessary to make required improvements, shall be provided by the Developer. Graded but undeveloped land shall be stabilized from erosion to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property. Permanent landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The Developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval or slope easements for offsite work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works. A permit from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-way. An Area Drainage Plan fee shall be paid to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to issuance of any permit. R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 15 54. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. Permit shall include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities as directed by the Department of Public Works. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site. d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway, The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway shall be shown on the precise grading plan. 55. The site is in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood Zone "A" and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, this project shall comply with Ordinance 91-12 of the City of Temecula and with the rules and regulations of FEMA for development within a Flood Zone "A" which may include obtaining a letter of map revision from FEMA. 56. 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 57. 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. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets adjoining the site in accordance with Ordinance 461 and shall be shown on the improvement plans as directed by the Department of Public Works. Concrete sidewalks and ramps shall be constructed along public street frontages in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96,1~C 8/13/96 klb 16 Improvement plans shall extend 300 feet beyond the project boundaries or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works. 58. 59. 60. 61. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the Department of Public Works. Public Street improvement plans shall include plan and profile showing existing topography, utilities, proposed centerline, top of curb and flowline grades as directed by the Department of Public Works. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be piped or conveyed through undersidewalk drains. The Developer shall construct or post security and an agreement shall be executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. Street improvements, which may include, but not limited to: pavement, curb and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control devices as appropriate b. Storm drain facilities c. Landscaping (slopes and parkways) d. Sewer and domestic water systems e. Erosion control and slope protection 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. The Developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. 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 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 R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 17 understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the provisions of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 62. 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 63. All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. 64. All public improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 65. 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 66. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside County Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated July 10, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 67. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated August 6, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 68. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California Water District's transmittal dated July 18, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 69. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Municipal Water District's transmittal dated July 8, 1996, a copy of which is attached. 70. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information Center, Department of Anthropology, University of California Riverside's transmittal dated July 10, 1996, a copy of which is attached. R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 18 TO: FROM County of Riverside DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATE: July 10, 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~ ........ ATTN: Matthew Fagan CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PA96-0132 Department of Environmental Health has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit No. PA96-0132 and has no objections. 2. PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL, the following are required: a) "Will-serve" letters from the appropriate water and sewering districts. b) If there are to be any food establishments, (including vending machines), three complete sets of plans for each food establishment will be submitted including a fixture schedule, a fmish schedule and a plumbing schedule in order to ensure compliance with the California Uniform Retail Food Facilities Law 2. c) If there are to be any hazardous materials, a clearance letter from the Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Management Branch (358-5055) will be required indicating that the project has been cleared for: · Underground storage tanks, Ordinance # 617.3. · HnTardous Waste Generator Services, Ordinance # 615.2. · Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance with Ordinance # 651.1). · Waste reduction management. GD:dr (909) 285-8980 cc: Doug Thompson, Hazardous Materials Branch OF TF.M ECU LA August 6, 1996 TO: ~rlN: RE: PLANNING DEPARTMENT MATTHEW FAGAN PA96-0132 JAN WEILF3,T RV With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced plot plan, the Fire Department recommends the following fu'e protection measures be provided in accordance with Temecula Ordinances and/or recognized fire protection standards: The fire Deparanent is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commemial building using the procedures established in Ordinance 546. A fire flow of 2000 GPM for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super (6"x4"x2-2 1/2" ) fire hydrant, located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured alonl vehicular tmvelwlys. The applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting location of the existing f~e hydrant and the existing water system is capable of delivering 2000 GPM fire flow for a 2 hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure. If a water system curren~y does not exist, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the water plans to the Fire Department for r~view. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, containing a Fire Depafmzent approval signature block, and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum tim flow. Once the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature. 45174 bUSINESS PAI~K DI~IVE * TEMECULA CALtFOI~NIA 9~590 · PHONE (714) 694-1989 · FAX (714) 694-1999 The requinxl wamr system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the job site. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay $.25 per square foot as mitigation for fee protection impacts. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a plan check fee of $582.00 to the City of Temecula. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS MUST BE MET PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. Install a complete fire sprinkler system in all buildings. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinkled must be included on the rifle page of the building plans. Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fn'e alarm system. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. 10. Knox Key lock boxes shall be installed on ail buildings/suites. If building/suite requires HaTardous Material Reporting (Material Safety Dam Sheets) the Knox HAZ MAT Data and key storage cabinets shall be installed. If building/suites are protected by a fn'e or burglar alarm system, the boxes will require "Tamper" monitoring. Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. 11. All exit doors shall be openable without the use of key or special knowledge or effort. 12. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. Low level exit signs shall also be provided, where exit signs are required by section 3314(a). 13. Occupancy separation walls will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, Section 503. 14. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A10BC. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement. 15. It is prohibited to use/process or store any materials in this occupancy that would classify . it as an "H" occupancy per Chapter 9 of the Uniform Building Code. 16. Prior to final inspection of any building, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fkre lanes with appropriate lane painting and or signs. 17. 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. 18. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. 19. Please contact the Fire Depaximent for a Final inspection prior to occupancy. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Depa~tu~ent Planning and engineering section (909)694-6439. Laun Cabral Fire Safety Specialist Ihn John F. Hennigar Phillip L. Forbes Kenneth C. Dealy Linda M, Fr~goso C. Michsel Cower Best, Best & Krieger July 18, 1996 Mr. Matthew Fagan, Associate Planner City of Temecula Planning Department 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590-3606 SUBJECT: Water Availability Parcels 3 and 4 of Parcel Map 17288 APN 922-110-018 and APN 922~110-019 Planning Application No. PA96-0132 Dear Mr. Fagan: Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial arrangements between RCWD and the property owner. If fire protection is required, customer will need to contact RCWD for fees and requirements. Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services Representative at this office. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Steve Brannon, P.E. Development Engineering Manager wp%\SB:eb090/F012/FEG cc: Laurie Willjams, Engineering Services Supervisor Rancho C:llifornia Water District ~l Manager John B. Brudin Legal Countd P. tdwine and Shetrill Director af The Metropolitan Water DIrt. or of Southe rn Cal~rn~a Chester C. Gilbert Joseph J. Kaebier, CPA Matthew Fagan City of Temecula Planning Department P.O. Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 ~ Board af Dimctan ~ D. Si~ ~1 '~ Da~d 1. Sawn July 18 , 1996 [~~ SUBJECT: PA96-0~32 (Jan Weilert RV) - Agency Case Transmittal/ Plan of Service Dear Mr. Fagan: We have reviewed the materials transmitted by your office which describe the subject project. Our comments are outlined below: GENEPj~L Our understanding is the proposed subject project is to develop 2.2 acres on Parcels 3 and 4 of PM 17288. The development will include a 20,512 square foot building for the Jan Weilert RV sales and repair facility. The subject project site is located on the westerly side of Front Street, 1945 feet south of First Street in the City of Temecula. The subject project is located within the District's sanitary sewer service area. A matter of importance which must be understood is the available service capabilities of the District's systems are constantly changing due to the continuous development within the District and the improvement of District facilities. Hence, the service for the subject project will be dependent upon the available capacity of the District's systems at the time service agreements are made. DOMESTIC WATER The subject project is located outside of the District's water service area. Consequently, no potable water facilities will be coordinated through EMWD. Mail to: Post Office Box 8300 San Jacinto, California 92581-8300 Telephone (909) 925-7676 Fax (909) 929-0257 Main Office: 2045 5. San Jacinto Avenue, San Jacinto Customer Service / Engineering Annex: 440 E. Oakland Avenue, Hemet. CA Operations & Maintenance Center: 2270 Trumble Road, Perris, CA 92571 Telephone (909) 928-3777 Fax (909) 928-6177 Mr. Matthew Fagan PA 96-0132 July 18, 1996 Page 2 SANITARY SEWER The subject project is tributary to the District's Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Both parcels are fronted by an S-inch VCP sewer (SD-8204) and each have a 6-inch lateral extending from the sewer main to the R/W line. The nature of the disposal composition may require EMWD approved grease traps, sand traps and sampling boxes to be installed on the sewer laterals for the project. RECLAIMED WATER The subject project is located outside of the District's water service area. Consequently, no reclaimed water facilities will be coordinated through EMWD. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Additions or improvements to off-site facilities are not required to adequately serve the subject project. This letter serves as the plan-of-service for the subject project. consequently, the project will be processed through the Customer Service Department for determination of appropriate plan check fees and connection requirements. Tracking of the subject project shall be coordinated through the "One-Stop" program by Ms. Judy Conacher at (909)766- 1810, ext. 4409. If you have any questions regarding the above matter, please call me at (909) 766-1810, ext. 4468. Sincerely, EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Mike Gow, P.E. Civil Engineer Customer Service Department MAG/mag CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM MONO bryo Eastern Information Center Department of Anthropology University of California Riverside, CA 92521-0418 Phone (909) 787-5745 Fax (909) 787-5409 CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation: Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have been reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources: The proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural resources and contains or is adjacent to k~own cultural resource(s). A Please I study is recommended. Based upon existing data the proposed project area has the potential for containing cultural rosouroes. A Phase I study is recommended. A Phase I cultural resource study (MF # ) identified onc or more cultural resources. The project area contains, or has the possibility of containing, cultural resources. Howcvcr, due to the nature of the project or prior data rexovcry studies, an advcrac effect on cultural resources is not anticipated. Further study is not recommcnded. / A Phase l cultural resourcc study (MF # ) identified no cultural resourccs. Further study is not recommended. There is a low probability of cultural rcsourccs. Further study is not recommended. I f, during construction, cultural rcsourccs are encountered, work should bc halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makcs recommendations. Due to the archaeological sensitivity of the area, earthmoving during construction should bc monitored by a professional archaeologist. The submission of a cultural resource management report is recommended following guidelines for Archaeological Resource Management Reports prepared by the California Office of Historic Prtservation, Preservation planning Bulletin 4(a), Dcccmber 1989. Phase I Phase II Phase iil Phase IV COMMENTS: A If you have any quitions, piece contact us. Records searoh and field survey Testing [Evaluam rosourcc significance; propose mitigation measures for "significant' sites.] Mitigation [Data recovery by excavation, preservation in place, or a combination of the two.] Monitor earthmoving activities Eastern Information Center FAC'xFRMS~TI~ANSMIT ATTACHMENT NO. 2 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\STAFFR]~T\132PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 19 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist 6. 7. 8. 10. Project Title: Lead Agency Name and Address: Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General Plan Designation: Zoning: Description of Project: Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Planning Application No. PA96-0132 (Conditional Use Permit - Fast Track) Ci.ty of Temecula. 43174 Business Park Drive Temccula. ' CA 92590 Matthew Fagan. Associate Planner (909) 694-6400 West side of Front Street. immediately south of the existing Jan Weilert RV Sales and Service Facility Jan Wellerr. 27590 Jefferson Avenue. Temecula. CA 92590 SC (Service Commercial) SC (Service Commercial) The design, construction and operation of a 20.500 square foot Boat Sales and Sen, ice Facili~' Front Street to the east, Murrieta Creek to the West, Jan Weilert RV Sales and Service to the north and vacant to the south Other public agencies whose approval is required: Riverside Cotm~' Fire Department, Riverside Coan~, Health Department. Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho Califomia Water District, Southern Califomia Gas Company, Southeru California Edison Company. General Telephone Company, and Riverside Transit Agency R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 20 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this prqiect. 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 Sep,'ices IX] Water [ ] Utilities and Service Systems I I Air Qualit).' IX] Aesthetics [ ] Transportation/Circulation [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation [ ] Energy. and Mineral Resources [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this imtial evaluation, 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. Signature Date Printed Name For R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 21 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOLIRCES Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless lnco~orated Significant lmpacl LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1, Figure 2-1, Page 2-17) b. Conflict with applicable enviromnental plans or policies adopied by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c Bc incompatible with existing land use in the vicini~? (Source 1, Figure 2-1~ Page 2-17) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, Figure 5-4, Page 5-17) e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established communiLy (including low-income or minoriLty cornmuni~l)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population prqiects? b Induce substamial grovah in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c. Displace existtug housing, especially a~brdable housing'? GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? (Source 1, Figure 7-1, Page 7-6'} b. Seismic ground shaking? c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e. Landslides or mudflows? f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions form excavation, grading or fill? g. Subsidence ofthe land? h Expansive soils? [1 l1 l1 [] [] [] [1 [] [l [] [] [] [] [1 [] 11 [] [] [] [] [] I1 [] [] [x] [x] [] [] [x] [x] Ix] [1 [I [] 1] [1 [1 [] [] [1 [1 [1 [] [] [] I1 [1 Ix1 [x1 ix] ix] [x] ix] [x] [x] [] [] [x] ix] [] [] [] R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.pC 8/13/96 klb 22 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentialb Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Significanl No Impact Impact 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'? b Exposureofpeopleorpropenytowaterrelatedhazards such as flooding'? c Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidit}')? 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 tlu-ough substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g Altered direction or rate of flow of grom~dwater? h Impacts to groundwater quality? i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a, Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or prqiected air quality violation? b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? c. Alter all- movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d. Create objectionable odors? 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: m Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [ ] [ I [ ] [xl [ ] [ ] [x] I I- [ ] Ix] [ ] l ] [ ] ix] [ ] [ ] l ] [ ] ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] [1 [ 1 ix] [] [ ] [ ] ix] l ] [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] [1 [] [] [ ] [ ] ix] [ ] [] [1 [] [~ R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 23 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Impam Potentiall5 Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Than No Impact b Hazardsto safetyffomdesignt~atures(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses)? c, Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 12 Conllicts with adopted policies supporting alternative trm~sponation (e,g bus turnouts, bicycle racks)'? g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? b Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c Locally designated natural communities (e,g, oak forest. coastal habitat, etc.)'? d Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e. WildliI~ dispersal or migration corridors'? 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b. Usenon-renewalresouroesinawastefulandinetticient 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? R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.pC 8/13/96 klb 24 [1 [1 [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [] 1] [1 [] [1 [] [] [] I1 [1 [1 [] [1 [1 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 11 1] [I Ix] [] [] [] [l [] [] [] [] ix] [] ix] [] ix] ix] Ixl - I1 ix] [x] [x] ix] ix] ix] Ix] ix] [1 ix] [] Ix] ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially S~gni~cant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Incorporated No Impact c. The creation of any health heard or potential health heard? d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards7 e Increase fire hazard in areas with ~ammable brush, grass, ur trees? 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Maintenance ofpublicfacilities, including roads? 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? b. Communications ~stems? c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? E Solid waste disposal? g. Local or regional water supplies? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [1 [] [] [l [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] l] [] [] [1 [] [] [1 [1 [] Ix] Ix] [] ix] ix] [x] ix] ix] ix] [l [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] l] [] [] ix] ix] ix] ix] ix] ix] ix] ix] R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 25 ISSUES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES Potentially Significant Potenlially Unless Si,tnificant Mitigation blipact Incorporaled Less Than Significant Impact bupact 13. AESTHETICS. Wouhl the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect'? c Create light or glare? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a Disturb paleontological resources'? (Source 2, Figure 56, Page 283) b. Disturb archaeological resources? c Affect historical resources? d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique eththc cultural values? eRestrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potel~tial impact area'? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: aIncrease the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational hcilities? b. Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE, a Does the project have the potential to degrade the qualit), of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-susta/ming 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 histo~' or prehistory? b.Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? [1 ] ] ix] [x] [l [] [x] I1 [xl [x] [xl [1 [x] [x] R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 26 Does the prqject have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a prqiect are considerable when viewed in co~mection with the effects of past prqjects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). [l [1 [] ix] Does the project have environmental eflbcts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 17. EARLIER ANALYSES. None [] [l SOURCES 1. Ci~' of Temecula General Plan 2 City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report 3. South Coast Air Quality_ Management District CEQA Air Quali_ty Handbook. R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.pC 8/13/96 klb 27 DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Land Use and Planning 1.b. The project will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of SC (Service Commercial). Impacts from all General Plan Land Use Designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for (EIR) the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project.: Further, all agencies with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project and it is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their specific environmental plans or polices. The project site has been previously graded and services have been extended into the area. There will be limited, if any environmental effects on environmental plans or polices adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community). The project is a boat sales and service facility surrounded by land that is currently developed and planned to be developed with similar uses. There is no established residential community (including low-income or minority community) at this site. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. Ponulation and Housing 2.8. The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. The project is a boat sales and service facility and is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Service Commercial. Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and does not exceed the floor area ratio for Service Commercial, it will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 2.b. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Service Commercial. The project will cause people to relocate to or within Temecuta; however, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth in the area. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not displace housing, especially affordable housing. The project site is vacant; therefore no housing will be displaced. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT\I32pA96,PC 8/13/96 klb 28 Geologic Problems 3.b,c, f,g,h. The project may have a significant impact on people involving seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill subsidence and expansive soils. The project is located in Southern California, an area which is seismically active. Any potentially significant impacts will be mitigated through building construction which is consistent with Uniform Building Code standards. Further, preliminary soil reports have been submitted and reviewed as part of the application submittal and recommendations contained in this report will be used to determine appropriate conditions of approval. The soils reports will also contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill, subsidence and expansive soils. 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. Modification to topography and ground surface relief features will not be considered significant since modifications will be consistent with the surrounding development. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.d. The project will not expose people to a seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard. The project is not located in an area where any of these hazards could occur. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project. 3,6. The project will not expose people to landslides or mudflows. The Final Environmental Impact for the City of Temecula General Plan has not identified any known landslides or mudslides located on the site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 3.i. The project will not impact unique geologic or physical features. No unique geologic features or physical features exist on the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Water 4.8. The project will result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff; however, these changes are considered less than significant. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change, potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. After mitigation measures are performed, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 29 4.b. The project may have a potential impact to people or property to water related hazards such as flooding. The project site is located adjacent to Murrieta Creek and within the limits of the 100 year floodplain. Soil will be imported to the site to raise the finished floor of the structure above the limits of the 100 year floodplain. The developer will be required to file a flood plain development permit which requires approval from the Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District. Prior to issuance of a grading permit (precise of rough), a hydraulic analysis of the impacts of filling within the limits of the floodway in accordance with section 15.12,200 of the Temecula Municipal Code is needed will be required. Public Works Staff is also recommending the applicant provide an emergency evacuation plan for removal of the vehicles as part of the development application. The project is located within a dam inundation area as · identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate service provision as the City develops. After mitigation measures are incorporated, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.0, The project may have a potentially significant effect on discharges into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, the developer will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.d,e. The project will have a less than significant impact in a change in the amount of surface water in any waterbody or impact currents, or to the course or direction of water movements. Additional surface runoff will occur because previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape and driveways. Surface drainage will be channeled to Front Street. Due to the limited scale of the project, the additional amount of drainage into the Murrieta Creek will not considered significant. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.f-h. The project will have a less than significant change in the quantity and quality 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. Limited changes will occur in the quantity and quality of ground waters; however, due to the minor scale of the project, it will not be considered significant. Further, construction on the site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 4.i. The project will not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater water otherwise available for public water supplies. According to information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Temecula General Plan, "Rancho California Water District indicate that they can accommodate additional water demands." Water service currently exists in the immediate proximity to the project. Water service will need to be provided by R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 30 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 The project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project (20,500 square feet of boat sales and service) is below the threshold for potentially significant air quality impact (43,OOO square feet for auto sales - the only comparable use in the table) established by South Coast Air Quality Management District (Page 6-11, Table 6-2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management CEQA Air Quality Handbook).' No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.b. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant pollutants nor sensitive receptors in proximity to the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.0. The project will not alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. The limited scale of the project precludes it from creating any significant impacts on the environment in this area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 5.d. The project will create objectional odors during the construction phase of the project. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. No other odors are anticipated as a result of this project. Transoortation/Circulation The project will result in a less than significant increase in vehicle trips; however it will add to traffic congestion. It is anticipated that this project will contribute less than a five percent (5%) increase in existing volumes during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour time frames to the intersections of Front Street and Santiago Road and Front Street and SR79 South. The applicant will be required to pay traffic signal mitigation fees and public facility fees as conditions of approval for the project. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.b. The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current City standards and does not propose any hazards to safety from design features. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.0. The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. The project is a boat sales and service facility in an area with existing similar uses and planned Service Commercial uses. The project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does not provides access to the adjacent RV sales and service facility; however, it will not impact access to nearby uses. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 6.d, The project will have sufficient parking capacity on-site. The applicant has completed a parking needs analysis based upon the uses proposed by this project. Based upon this analysis, there will be sufficient on-site parking spaces provided. Off-site parking will not be impacted. A condition of approval will be placed on the project which will not allow display area in the required parking areas. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6,e. The project will not result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Hazards or barriers to bicyclists have not been included as part of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.f. The project will not result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting' alternative transportation. The project was transmitted to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and their response states: "The proposed project does not impact RTA facilities or services." No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 6.g. The project will not result in impacts to rail, waterborne or air traffic since none exists currently in the immediate proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Biological Resources The project will not result in an impact to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, including, but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds. The project site has been previously disturbed and graded. Currently, there are no native species of plants, no unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of plants, no native vegetation on the site. A portion of the applicant's property is within the Murrieta Creek; however, it will not be disturbed and will be dedicated to the Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District. Further, there is no indication that any wildlife species exist at this location. The project will not reduce the number of species, provide a barrier to the migration of animals or deteriorate existing habitat. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Habitat Conservation fees will be required to mitigate the effect of cumulative impacts to the species. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.b. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on site, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an impact to locally designated natural communities. Reference response 7.b. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 7.d. The project will not result in an impact to wetland habitat. There is no wetland habitat on-site and the wetland adjacent to the site will not be disturbed. Reference response 7.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 32 7.6. The project will not result in an impact to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. The project site does not serve as part of a migration corridor. A portion of the applicant's property is within the Murrieta Creek; however, it will not be disturbed and will be dedicated to the Riverside County Flood Control and Conservation District. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Energy and Mineral Resources The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to energy conservation during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 8.b. The project will result in a less than significant impact for the use of non- renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. While there will be an increase in the rate of use of any natural resource and in the depletion of nonrenewable resource(s) (construction materials, fuels for the daily operation, asphalt, lumber) and the subsequent depletion of these non-renewable natural resources. Due to the scale of the proposed development, these impacts are not seen as significant. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. No known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State are located at this project site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Hazards 9.8. The project will result in a less than significant impact due to risk of explosion, or the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions since none are proposed in the request. While service uses (boat repair) uses hazardous substances, they are regulated by both the Fire Department and the Department of Environmental Health. Both entities have reviewed the project. The applicant must receive clearance from the Department of Environmental Health prior to any plan check submittal. The applicant must receive clearance from the Fire Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. This applies to storage and use of hazardous materials. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.b. The project will not interfere with an emergency response plan or an emergency evaluation plan. The subject site is not located in an area which could impact an emergency response plan. The project will take access from a maintained street and will therefore not impede any emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.c. The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable health laws during the plan check stage. No permits will be issued unless the project R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96,PC 8/13/96 klb 321 is found to be consistent with these applicable laws. Reference response 9.a. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 9.d. The project will not expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards. No health hazards are known to be within proximity of the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not result in an increase to fire hazard in an area with flammable brush, grass, or trees. The project is a boat sales and service facility in an area of existing uses and proposed Service Commercial uses. The project is not located within or proximate to a fire hazard area. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Noise 10.a. The proposal will result in a less than significant increase to existing noise levels. The site is currently vacant and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. Long-term noise generated by this project would be similar to existing and proposed uses in the area. Residentially designated land, currently vacant, is located to the west of the project (across Murrieta Creek) and is far enough away not to be impacted from this project. No significant noise impacts are anticipated as a result of this project in either the short or long-term. lO.b. The project may expose people to severe noise levels during the development/construction phase (short run). Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is considered very annoying and can cause hearing damage from steady 8-hour exposure. This source of noise will be of short duration and therefore will not be considered significant. There will be no long-term exposure of people to noise. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 11.c. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in a need for new or altered school facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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 R:\STAFFRPT\I32pA96.pC 8/13/96 klb 34 considered significant. The Gasoline Tax is sufficient to cover any of the proposed expenses. 1 l.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 in proximity to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.b. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to communication systems (reference response No. 12.a.). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.c. The project will not result in the need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 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 Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.e. The proposal will result in a less than significant need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage. The project will need to provide some additional on-site drainage systems. The drainage system will be required as a condition of approval for the project and will tie into the existing system. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.f. The proposal will not result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to solid waste disposal systems. Any potential impacts from solid waste created by this development can be mitigated through participation in any Source Reduction and Recycling Programs which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 12.g. The project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to local or regional water supplies. Reference response 12.d. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.pC 8/13/96 klb 35 Aesthetics 13.a. The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in a area where there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.b. The project will not have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The project is a boat sales and service facility in an area of existing uses and proposed Service Commercial uses. The building is consistent with other designs in the area and proposed landscaping will provide additional aesthetic enhancement. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 13.c. The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Cultural Resources 14.b,c. The project will not have an impact on archaeological and historical resources. The project was transmitted to the Eastern Information Center - University of California Riverside for review and comment. Based on their Cultural Resource Review dated July 8, 1996: "There is a tow probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended." The Review additionally states: "If, during construction, cultural resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluates the finds and makes recommendations." This requirement will be included as a condition of approval for the project. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.d. The project will not have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. Reference response 14.b,c. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. 14.e. The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. No religious or sacred uses exist at the site or are proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. Recreation 15.a,b. The project will have a less than significant impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 36 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.pC 8/13/96klb 37 Mitigation Monitoring Program Planning Application No. PA96-0132 (Conditional Use Permit) Geologic Problems General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department. Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building and Safety Department. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of slopes consistent with Ordinance No. 457. Submit erosion control plans for approval by the Department of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 38 General Impact: Mitigation Measures: Specific Processes: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Planting of on-site landscaping that is consistent with the Development Code. Submit landscape plans that include planting of slope to the Planning Deparunent for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Planning Department. Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Ensure that soil compaction is to City slandards. A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and building permits. Department of Public Works and Building & Safety Department. Exposure of people or property to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic Found failure, landslides or mudflows, expansive soils or earthquake hazards. Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Submit construction plans to the Building & Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96,PC 8/13/96 klb 39 Water General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The project will result in changes to absorption rates. drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. Methods of controlling runoff, from site so that it will not negatively impact adjacent properties, including drainage conveyances. have been incorporated into site design and will be included on the grading plans. Submit grading and drainage plan to the Department of Public Works for approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permit. Deparu'nent of Public Works. General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity). An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP). Transportation/Circulation General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements and traffic impacts. Post bond @ $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00 and execute agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 40 General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Biological Resources General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. Payment of Traffic Signal Mitigation Fee. Pay pro-rata share for traffic impacts (to be determined by the Director of Public Works. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site. Provide on-site parking spaces to accommodate customers and employees. Install and label on-site parking spaces to read "Customer and Employee Parking Only." Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Department of Public Works, Planning Department and Building & Safety Department. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds). Pay Interim Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat. Pay $1,950.00 per acre of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Department of Public Works and Planning Department R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 41 Public Services General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered governmental services regarding fire protection. The project will incrementally increase the need for fire protection: however. it will contribute its fair share to the maintenance of service provision. Payment of Fire Mitigation Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Riverside County Fire Department. Prior to the issuance of building permit. Building & Safety Department A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No significant impacts are anticipated. Payment of School Fees. Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified School District. A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public facilities. including roads. Payment of Public Facility Fee for road improvements, traffic impacts, and public facilities. Post bond @ $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000.00, and execute agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee. Prior to the issuance of building permits. Department of Public Works. R:\STAFFRPT\132PAq6.PC 8113/96 klb 42 AESTHETICS General Impact: Mitigation Measure: Specific Process: Mitigation Milestone: Responsible Monitoring Party: The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and glare that could affect the Patomar Observatory. Use lighting lechniques that are consistent with Ordinance No. 655. Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for approval. Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Building & Safety Department. R:\STAFFRPT\132PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb 43 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 EXHIBITS R:/STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb CITY OF TEMECULA pROJECT--~ SITE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0132 (Conditional Use Permit, Fast Track) ~XHIBIT A VICINITY MAP , LANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 19, 1996 R:\FAGANM\REPORTSXI32PA96.PC 8/2/96 mf CITY OF TEMECULA SP EX3tIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIG NATION ~ SC (SERVICE CO1VIIVIERCIAL) LM VL EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - SC (SERVICE CO1VEVIERCIAL) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0132 (Conditional Use Peait, Fat Track) PLANNING CO1VEVHSSION DATE - AUGUST 19, 1996 R:\FAGANM\REPORTS\I32PA96.FC 8/2/96 mf CITY OF TEMECULA FRONT STREET PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0132 (Conditional Use Permit, Fast Track) Ya-HBIT D SITE PLAN -'LANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 19, 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA ' A PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0132 (Conditional Use Permit, Fast Track) EXHIBIT E LANDSCAPE PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 19, 1996 R:\STAFFRPT\I32PA96.PC 8/13/96 klb CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0132 (Conditional Use Permit, Fast Track) ~XHIBIT F ELEVATIONS , LANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 19, 1996 R:\FAGANM\REPORTS\132PA96,pC 812196 mf CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA96-0132 (Conditional Use Permit, Fast Track) EXHIBIT F ELEVATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 19, 1996 R:\FAGANM\REPORTS~132PA96.PC 8/2/96 mf ITEM #5 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: August 19, 1996 SUBJECT: General Plan Land Use Map Amendment No. 2 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 1" (Planning Application PA96-0043) Prepared By: David W. Hogan, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission: RECERTIFY the Final Environmental impact Report for the General Plan for the amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map. ADOPT PC Resolution No. 96- entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE CITY GENERAL PLAN AND AMENDING SOME OF THE STATISTICAL TABLES IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN" READOPT the Negative Declaration for the City Development Code and Zoning Map for the amendments to the City Zoning Map. ADOPT PC Resolution No. 96- entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA" BACKGROUND The City Council adopted the City's first General Plan in November 1993. The first General Plan Land Use Map Amendment and the City Zoning Map were approved in 1995. Since that time a need to amend the General Plan and Zoning Map have been identified. R:\GENPLAI'~CLEANUI>2.PCI 8/13/96klb 1 DISCUSSION AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN Since the adoption of the General Plan, the City Council has expressed concern that the Neighborhood Commercial designation at the corner of Pauba and Margarita Roads may be inappropriate for the site. Staff has also identified several other changes to the General Plan Land Use Map, as well as updates to some of the tables in the Land Use Element, that should be considered. The proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map are described in the following table. Location maps for each of the proposed changes are included in Attachment No. 3. PROPERTY NUMBER APN OWNER'S NAME G.P. LAND USE DESIGNATION EXISTING ~ PROPOSED JUSTIFICATION 1 911-150-039 Open Space/ Low-Medium Jeffrey Compton Recreation Density Residential The site was not accepted as open space by the Flood Control District, and is currently privately owned. The owner is requesting that this property be designated Medium Density Residential. 2A 945-110-001 Neighborhood Yang & Yang Commercial 2B 945-110-002 Neighborhood V. P. Triet Commercial 2C 945-110-003 Neighborhood Ted Zonos Commercial Low Density Residential or Office Professional Low Density Residential or Office Professional Low Density Residential or Office Professional The Council has expressed a concern that a commercial designation on these properties may be inappropriate and have asked the Planning Commission to reconsider the land use designations. 3 921-300 -006 Medium Open Space/ City of Temecula Density Recreation Residential This site is City owned. A community park is being built on the site. progerry 1 This property is located north of the channel for Santa Gertrudis Creek and west of North General Kearney Road. It was originally shown as Open Space on an adjacent specific plan. The property was sold to Mr. Compton in 1994. In his August 6, 1996 letter he is requesting that the property be changed from Open Space/Recreation to Medium Density Residential. However, after a review of the surrounding area, staff recommends that the site be designated as Low-Medium Density Residential to stay compatible with the surrounding area. A copy of Mr. Compton's letter is included in Attachment No. 4. Properties 2A. 2B. and 2C The appropriateness of the land uses on the three properties located at the southwest corner of Pauba and Margarita Roads has been raised by the City Council. Local residents have also previously expressed concern that a neighborhood shopping center to serve local residents is an inappropriate land use near their homes. As a result, the Council is requesting that the Planning Commission consider changing the General Plan and designations on the site to Low Density Residential. If the Commission believes that a non-residential land use designation may be the most. appropriate use for this site, there is a possible alternative. That alternative is to designate these three properties as Office Professional. prooertv 3 This parcel is currently owned by the City of Temecula. The Community Services District has designed a community park for the site. This change is being requested to reflect the actual future character of the property. Land Use Table Updates There have been a number of amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map since its adoption. These have resulted in the need to update Tables 2-2 and 2-3 of the Land Use Element to accurately represent citywide land use designations. The final numbers on these Tables will be adjusted based upon the Commission's recommendation and the City Council's final action. Copies of the updated Tables, including the previously discussed Land Use Map changes, are included in Attachment 5. To eliminate the need to bring housekeeping changes to non-policy and non-directive summary tables in the General Plan, staff is requesting permission to update these tables automatically whenever Plan amendments are approved by the City Council. The Resolution recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan is included in Attachment No. 1 AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING MAP Since the adoption of the City Zoning Map, several mapping problems have been identified. These corrections, in addition to the consistency rezoning that will be required for the previously discussed General Plan Amendments are shown below. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NUMBERS APN 911-150-039 Jeffrey Compton EXISTING Specific Plan (SP) ZONING MAP CATEGORY I PROPOSED Low-Medium Density Residential (LM) JUSTIFICATION GP Amendment 1. Needed to make site consistent with revised General Plan Land use designation. R:\GENPLAN\CLEANUP2.PCI 8/13t96 klb 3 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NUMBERS APN 2A 945-110-001 V. P. Triet 2B 945-110-002 Yang & Yang 2C 945-110-003 Ted Zonos 3 4 921-300-006 City of Temecula 954-020-005 Rancho CaliforniaWater District 953-150-038 Rancho CaliforniaWater District 6 Not Applicable EXISTING Neighborhood Commercial (NC) ZONING MAP CATEGORY ~ PROPOSED Low Density Residential (L-1) or Professional Office (PO) Neighborhood Low Density Commercial Residential (L-l) or (NC) Professional Office (PO) Neighborhood Low Density Commercial Residential (Lol) or (NC) Professional Office (PO) Medium Public Parks and Density Recreation (PR) Residential (M) Specific Plan Public Institutional (SP) (PI) Specific Plan Public Institutional (SP) (PI) Delete General Plan residential densities from the Legend of the City Zoning Map JUSTIFICATION GP Amendment 2A. Needed to make the site consistent with revised General Plan Land use designation. GP Amendment 2B. Needed to make the site consistent with revised General Plan Land use designation. GP Amendment 2C. Needed to make the site consistent with revised General Plan Land use designation, GP Amendment 3. The site will be a City-owned park. These parcels are not located within the adjacent Specific Plans. They are currently used and owned by Rancho California Water District. Eliminates possible confusion over the allowable land use densities and standards. Zoning MaD Amendments 1 through 3 The justifications for Zoning Map Amendments 1 through 3 are discussed under the General Plan Amendment portion of this Staff Report as Properties 1, 2A, 2B, 2C and 3. To maintain consistency between the General Plan and the City's Official Zoning Map staff recommends the zoning on these sites match the Commission's recommended General Plan Land Use Designations. Zoning MaD Amendments 4 and 5 These parcels are currently zoned Specific Plan. However, the parcels are not actually regulated by the adjacent Specific Plans. Both sites are currently owned and used by Rancho California Water District. To provide appropriate land use regulation for each site, staff is recommending R:\GENPLAI~CLEANUP2.PCI 8II3/96klb 4 that these sites be zoned as Public Institutional. Zoning Map Amendment 6 Staff has been concerned that showing the General Plan land use density ranges on the City Zoning Map might cause some public confusion or misunderstanding. As a result, staff is taking this opportunity to recommend removal of this from the map legend. Removing the General Plan land use density ranges from the Zoning Map will not change the uses, potential densities, or applicable development standards for any property within the City. The locations of the sites affected by Zoning Map Amendments 1 through 3 are contained in' Attachment No. 3. Location maps for parcel-related Zoning Map Amendment Numbers 4 and 5 are included in Attachment No. 6. The Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council approve an ordinance amending the City Zoning Map is included in Attachment No. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION An Initial Environmental Study (IES) was prepared for this project. The IES evaluated the potential impacts on the environment that might occur beyond those that were initially identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan. The Initial Environmental Study identified no additional significant impacts beyond those impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan that was certified by the City Council on November 9, 1993. In addition, the City adopted a Negative Declaration a Zoning Map implementing the General Plan on December 19, 1995. All future development projects will undergo an appropriate level of review when private and public development proposals are considered by the City. A copy of the IES is included in Attachment No. 7. FINDINGS The proposed amendments to the Land Use Map are consistent with the goals and policies contained in the various elements of the General Plan. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Map are consistent with the adopted City General Plan as amended. Attachments; m 4, 5 6 7. PC Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 6 Exhibit A, CC Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 9 PC Resolution No. 96-__- Blue Page 15 Exhibit A, Ordinance No. 96- - Blue Page 18 General Plan Amendment Parcel Specific Land Use Request Maps - Blue Page 22 Letter from Mr. Jeffrey Compton - Blue Page 26 Revised Land Use Element Tables - Blue Page 27 Zoning Map Amendment Parcel Specific Land Use Request Maps - Blue Page 28 Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 31 R:XGENPL~d',~CLEANUP2.PCI 8/13/96klb 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- R:\GENPLAN~CLEANUP'2.PCI 8/13/96 klb 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND AMENDING SOME OF THE STATISTICAL TABLES IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN" WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well as any adjacent areas which, in thejudgement of the city, bears a relationship to its planning; and WHEREAS, On November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan; and WHEREAS, Sections 65350 of the Govemment Code permits a city to amend the general plan; and WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend the adopted General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has previously amended the adopted General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend tables within the Land Use Element to reflect these changes to the Land Use Map; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on August 19, 1996, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND AMENDING SOME OF THE STATISTICAL TABLES IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN" THAT IS ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A. R:XGF2qPLANXCLEANUP2.PCI 8/13/96 klb 7 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of August, 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 thereef, held on the 19th day of August, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske R:\GENPLAN~CLEANUP2,['CI 8/13/96 klb 8 EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 96- R:~GENPLAN~CLEANUF2.PCI 8/13/96 klb ~ EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND AMENDING SOME OF THE STATISTICAL TABLES IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well as any adjacent areas which, in the judgement of the city, bears a relationship to its planning; and WHEREAS, On November 9, 1993, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted the General Plan. WHEREAS, Sections 65350 of the Government Code permits a city to amend the general plan; and WHEREAS, the City has identified a need to amend the adopted General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has previously amended the adopted General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend tables within the Land Use Element to reflect these changes to the Land Use Map; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 1996, the Planing Commission recommended to the City Council that the Council approve and adopt the General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on __ to consider the proposed General Plan Amendment; and ,1996 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Re-certify Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan. The City Council, based upon the information contained in the Initial Environmental Study, hereby re- certifies that the Environmental hnpact Report for the General Plan accurately describes the impacts of the amended General Plan on City of Temecula and its surrounding areas. Section 2. Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map The City Council hereby amends the General Plan Land Use Designations on the following parcels as specified below: R:XGENpLANXCLEANUP2.PCI 8/13/% klb 10 A. APN 911-150-039 from Open Space/Recreation to Low-Medium Density Residential. B. APN 945-110-001 from Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density Residential/Office Professional. C. APN 945-110-002 from Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density Residential/Office Professional. D. APN 945-110-003 from Neighborhood Commercial to Low Density Residential/Office Professional. E. APN 921-300-006 from Medium Density Residential to Open Space. Section 3. Amendments to Tables. The City Council hereby approves the amendments to some of the Tables in the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the City of Temecula, as set forth on Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. Future Changes. The City Council hereby authorizes the Community Development Director to amend non-policy and non-directive summary tables in the General Plan whenever General Plan Amendments are approved by the City Council. Section 5. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. R:~GENPLAN~CLEANUP2.1>C18/13/96 klb ] '] Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __th day of , 1996. Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 199__ by the following vote of the Council: AYES: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk R:\GENPLANXCLEANUP2.PCI 8/13/96 klb ]2 EXHIBIT A LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE 2-2 R:XGENPLAN'~CLEANUP2.PCI 8/13/96 klb 'I 3 EXHIBIT B LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE 2-3 R:\GENPLAN\CLEANUP2.PCI 8/13/96 klb 'l 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- ATTACHMENT NO. 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA' WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plans as may be in effect in any such city; and WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance shall be consistent with the adopted general plan of the city; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Sections 21000 through 21177 of the Public Resources Code), requires that prior to the approval of any project the Lead Agency consider the potential impacts and effects of said project, consider alternatives to the project, and identify mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate the impact of the project on the environment; and IVHEREAS, the City of Ternecula has prepared an Initial Environmental for the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use and City Zoning Maps in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines prepared by the Office of Planning and Research; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held duly noticed public hearings on August 19, 1996, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the City Zoning Map and re-certify the previous Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan; and WHEREAS, That this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; and, WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, a public heating was conducted on August 19, 1996, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either m support or opposition. R:\GENPLANXCLEANUF2.PCI 8/13/96 klb ~ 6 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPT THE ORDINANCE ENTITLED 'AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA' THAT IS ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of August, 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 day of , 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\GENPLAN\CLE,ANUF2,PCI 8/13/96 klb '] 7 EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. 96- R:XGENPLAN\CLEANUP2.PCI 8/13/96 klb 1 ~ EXHIBIT A ORDINANCE NO. 96- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plans as may be in effect in any such city; and WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance shall be consistent with the adopted general plan of the city; and WHEREAS, there is a need to amend the Zoning Map to accurately reflect private property and to be consistent with the adopted General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has prepared an Initial Environmental Study in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and has determined that these changes are consistent with the Final Environmental hnpact Report prepared for the General Plan and the Negative Declaration prepared for the Development Code and Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, the Planning Comn~ission has held duly noticed public hearings on August 19, 1996, and recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendments to the City Zoning Map and re-certify the previous Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan; and WHEREAS, That this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; and, WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on __, 1996 to consider the proposed amendments to the City Zoning Map, and re-certify the previous Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY ZONING MAP The City Council hereby amends the Zoning Map for the City of Temecula as specified below: R:~GENPLAN~CLEANUF2.PCI 8113196 klb t 9 A. For the parcel identified as APN 911-150-039, change the Zoning Designation from Specific Plan to Low-Medium Density Residential (LM). Designation from Office (PO). For the parcel identified as APN 945-110-001, change the Zoning Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Low Density Residential (L-1)/Professional Designation from Office (PO). For the parcel identified as APN 945-110-002, change the Zoning Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Low Density Residential (L-1)/Professional. D. For the parcel identified as APN 945-110-003, change the Zoning Designation from Neighborhood Commemial (NC) to Low Density Residential (L-1)/Professional Office (PO). E. For the parcel identified as APN 921-300-006, change the Zoning Designation from Medium Density Residential (M) to Public Parks and Recreation (PR). F. For the parcel identified as APN 954-020-005, change the Zoning Designation from Specific Plan (SP) to Public Institutional (PI). G. For the parcel identified as APN 953-150-038, change the Zoning Designation from Specific Plan (SP) to Public Institutional (PI). the Zoning Map. Remove the General Plan Residential Density Ranges from the Legend of Section 2. SEVERABILITY. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 3. NOTICE OF ADOPTION. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. R:\GENPD.N~CLEANUP2.F'CI 8/13/96klb 20 Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of , 1996. Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS CITY OF TEMECULA) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 199_ by the following vote of the Council: AYES: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk R:\GENPLAI~CLEANUP2,PCI 8/13/96klb 2~l ATTACHMENT NO. 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PARCEL SPECIFIC LAND USE REO. UEST LOCATION MAPS R:XGENPLANXCLEANUP2,PCI 8/13/96klb 22 CITY OF TEIVIECULA /~ . LM / LU VL r'/' d CASE NO. - PA96-0043 PROPERTY - I GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 19, 1996 CITY OF TEMECULA L """~,~XIGO / pAL~E,I~ ' M LM VL CASE NO. - PA96-0043 PROPERTY - 2A,2B,2C GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 19, 1996 R:\GENPLANXCLEANUP'2.pCI 8/12/96dwh 24 CITY OF TEIVIECULA VL BP H X SC H _J OS LM X SC CC"'~~ SC 'H CC H (,,_:> H (.'~:>~/..tc CASE NO. o PA96-0043 PROPERTY - 3 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 19, 1996 R:~GENPLAI~CLEANUP2.PCI 8112196 dwh 25 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 LETTER FROM MR. JEFFREY COMPTON R:~GENPLAN\CLFANUF2.PCI 8/13/96klb 26 JEFFREY COMPTON Dave Hogan Land Planner City of Temecula Dear Mr. Hogan 8-6-96 RE: A.P.N. 911-150-039-9 First let me say, I really appreciate the city of Temecula taking the initiative in making changes to the general plan that make sense for all concerned. As you know, I have owned the property on North General Kemey for years with the "open space" zoning. This of course left no room to develop the property. The change to the general plan which will be proposed at the August 19th meeting, will now allow the property to be utilized. As I understand it, the zoning proposed at this meeting will be low to medium density. This would allow for the construction of one single family residence. I would like to suggest that a medium density zoning be approved. My reason for this is, the lot is over 12,000 square feet. The normal lot for a single family home in the area is 6,000 square feet. rm suggesting that my parcel is to large for one home but would be appropriate for a duplex or two separate homes. Also, this lot is next to a flood control channel which a home owner might not care for but a renter might accept. There is also a street on the north side of the property which acts as a buffer to the homes that will be built to the north. As I have said above, I appreciate the city taking charge and changing a zoning that makes no sense to anyone. I only make this suggestion as something to consider but will gladly accept what the planning depm'tment feels is appropriate. P.O. Box 1152, Temecula, CA 92593 · 909-676-5810 (Fax) 909-699-0648 ATTACHMENT NO. 5 REVISED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE TABLES R:\GENPLAN\CLEANUP'2.PCI g/13/96klb 27 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 ZONING MAP PARCEL SPECIFIC LAND USE REQUEST LOCATION MAPS R:\GENPLAI~CLEANHF2.PCI 8/13/96klb 28 LJ //' CC CITY OF TEMECULA CALIFORNIA SP PI PR CASE NO. - PA96-0043 LOCATION NUMBER 4 ZONING MAP CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 19, 1996 R:\GENPLAN\CLE,\NUP2,1'CI $/12/96dwh 29 CITY OF TEMECULA SP R-R)_ ~NCHO C~L%F6~N~ ~O~D (A-1 -p CASE NO. - PA96-0043 LOCATION NUMBER - 5 ZONING MAP CHANGE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - AUGUST 19, 1996 R:~GENPLAN~CLFANUP2.pCI 8/12/96dwh 30 ATTACHMENT NO. 7 INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY R:\GENPEAI~CLEANUP2.PCI 8/13/96 klb 3 1 CITY OF TEMECULA Environmental Checklist This Initial Environmental Study has been prepared to evaluate the impacts of the following General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map changes in the context of the Certified Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan. Project Title: Planning Application No. 96-0043 (General Plan Land Use Map Amendment No. 2, Zoning MaD Amendment No. 1, and updating of some of the Land Use Element tables) Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Temecula 43714 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Contact Person and Phone Number: Stephen Brown (909) 694-6400 Project Location: Throughout the City of Temecula as described below: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT NO. 2 INO. i APN 1 911-150-039 945-110-001 2 945-110-002 945-110-003 3 921-300-006 INO. I APN 1 911-150-039 945-110-001 2 945-110-002 945-110-003 3 921-300-006 PROJECT LOCATION North General Kearney Road, south of Sierra Madre South west corner of Pauba Road and Margarita Road South west corner of Pauba Road and Margarita Road South west corner of Pauba Road and Margarita Road Margarita Road east of Stonewood Road ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. I PROJECT LOCATION North General Kearney Road, south of Sierra Madre Southwest corner of Pauba Road and Margarita Road Southwest corner of Pauba Road and Margarita Road Southwest corner of Pauba Road and Margarita Road Margarita Road east of Stonewood Road R:\STAFFRFr~43PA96,EA 8/6/96 slb 4 5 6 954-020-005 953-150-038 Notapplicable Margarita Road north of Rancho Vista Road North west corner of Rancho California and Butterfield Stage Roads Delete the General Plan residential land use densities from the Legend of the City Zoning Map Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Current Genera[ Plan Designation: City of Temecula 43714 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT NO 2 I NO. I APN 1 911-150-039 945-110-001 2 945-110-002 945-110-003 3 921-300o006 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION Open Space Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial NeighborhoOd Commercial Medium Density Residential Current Zoning: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 1 INO. I APN 1 911-150-039 945-110-001 2 945-110-002 945-110-003 3 921-300-006 4 954-020-005 5 953-150-038 6 Notapplicable EXISTING ZONING Specific Plan (SP) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Medium Density Residential (M) Specific Plan (SP) Specific Plan (SP) Not applicable Description of Project: To make a number of amendments to the General Plan Land Use and Zoning District maps as shown in the following two R:\STAFFRPT~43PA96.EA 816196 slb I[ 2 tables. These changes represent adjustments in primarily urban land uses. This Initial Environmental Study is evaluating the overall impacts of these potential land use changes in context of the overall General Plan and associated Environmental Impact Report. Any specific development proposals for any future development activities will receive detailed environmental review at the appropriate time. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT NO 2 NO. APN 1 911-150-039 945-110-001 945-110-002 945-110-003 LAND USE DESIGNATION EXISTING I PROPOSED Open Space Low Medium Density Residential 3 921-300-006 1 2 Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Medium Density Residential Low Density Residential/Office Professional Low Density Residential/Office Professional Low Density Residential/Office Professional Open Space/ Recreation REMARKS The site is a developable lot that is owned by a private party. The City Council has expressed a concern that commercial designation on this site may be inappropriate, This site is City owned and is being designed as a ' park. APN 911-150-039 945-110-001 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO 1 LAND USE DESIGNATION EXISTING I PROPOSED Specific Plan (SP) Low-Medium Density Residential (LM) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Low Density Residential (L1) REMARKS Needed to make proposed property consistent with revised GP designation. Needed to make proposed property consistent with revised GP designation. R:XSTAFFRFI~3PA~6.EA 8/13/96 slb 2 945-110-001 945-110-002 945-110-003 3 921-300-006 4 954-020-005 5 953-150-038 6 Notapplicable Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Low Density Residential (L1) or Professional Office (PC) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Low Density Residential (L1)or Professional Office (PC) Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Medium Density Residential (M) Specific Plan (SP) Low Density Residential (L1) or Professional Office (PC) Public Parks and Recreation (PR) Public Institutional (PI) Specific Plan (SP) Public Institutional (PI) Delete the General Plan residential land use densities from the Legend of the City Zoning Map Needed to make proposed property consistent with revised GP designation. Needed to make proposed property consistent with revised GP designation. Needed to make proposed property consistent with revised GP designation. City owned park site. Mapping errors, not part of the adjacent Specific Plan. The General Plan density information is unnecessary and could Cause Some Confusion, Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT NO 2 NO. APN LAND USE SURROUNDINGS AND SETTING 1 911-150-039 2 945-110-001 945-110-002 Project site is currently vacant with a few eucalyptus trees. Surrounding uses are single family residential, flood control channel, City park and vacant lands. Project site is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses consist of single family residential, Temecula Valley High School and the City of Temecula sports park. Project site is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses consist of single family residential, Temecuta Valley High School and the City of Temecula sports park 945-110-003 3 921-300-006 Project site is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses consist of single family residential, Temecula Valley High School and the City of Temecula sports park Project site is vacant with a pronounced wash that traveresses the site. The surrounding land uses are apartments, single family residential, and a school. ZONING MAP AMENDMENt NO I NO. APN LAND USE SURROUNDING AND SETTINGS 1 911-150-039 2 945-110-001 5 6 10. 945-110-002 945-110-003 Project site is currently vacant with a few eucalyptus trees. Surrounding uses are single family residential, flood control channel, City park and vacant lands. Project site is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses consist of single family residential, Temecula Valley High School and the City of Temecula sports park. 3 921-300-006 Project site is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses consist of single family residential, Temecula Valley High School and the City of Temecula sports park. 4 954-020-005 Project site is currently vacant. Surrounding land uses consist of single family residential, Temecula Valley High School and the City of Temecula sports park. Project site is vacant with a pronounced wash that traveresses the site. The surrounding land uses are apartments, single family residential, and a school, The site is currently utilized by the Rancho California Water District for a water tank and by Pacific Bell as a wireless communications facility. The surrounding land uses are primarily residential, The First Methodist Church is located to the south. 953-150-038 A pump station currently occupies the site. Surrounding land uses are residential and the Heart and Thornton wineries. Not ApDlicable Not Applicable Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Geologic Problems Water Air Quality Transportation/Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources .[ DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: Ix] [] [] [] Hazards Noise Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Aesthetics Cultural Resources Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [] Signature Printed Name I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in a earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Date For R:%STAF]~RPl'\43PA96.EA 8/6196 slb 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? { ) c. Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (1, F2-1, p. 2-17) d. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (1, F5-4, p. 5-17) e. Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including low-income or minority community)? ( ) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would be proposal: a. Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through project in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (1, F2-1, p. 2-17) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving? a. Fault rupture? ( ) b. Seismic ground shaking? ( ) c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) Po[entially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant: Mitigation Significant Irnpact incorporated Impact No X -X X X X X X X X X X X Issues andSupp0rting Information Sources e. Landslides or mudflows? ( ) f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? ( ) g. Subsidence of the land? ( ) h. Expansive soils? ( ) I. Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) WATER. Would the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and mount of surface runoff? ( ) b. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (1-, FT- 3, p. 7-10 and 1, F7-4, p. 7-12) c. Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) d, Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) h. Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X :: Issues and Supporting Information Sources Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d. Create objectionable odors? ( ) 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b m Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) c. Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) d. Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) e. Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g. Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact -I No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X R:\STAFFRPT~,43PA96.EA 8/3/96 slb Issues and Supporting Information SoUrces 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a. Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? () b. Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) c. Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d. Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) e. Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? () 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b. Use non-renewal resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) 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? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X X R:%STAFFRFT'x43PA96.EA 8~3~96 slb Issues and Supporting Information Sources d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) e. Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? ( ) 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a. increase in existing noise levels? ( ) b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? ( ) b. Police protection? ( c. Schools? ( ) d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) e. Other governmental services? ( ) 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? ( ) b. Communications systems? ( ) c. Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) d. Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) e. Storm water drainage? ( ) f. Solid waste disposal? ( ) g. Local or regional water supplies? ( ) Potentially: Significant Impact Would the Less Than Significant Impact Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X R:~STAFFRPT'X43PA96.EA 813196 slb 13. 14. Issues and Supporting Information Sources AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c. Create light or glare? ( ) CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: Disturb paleontological resources? (2, F55, p.280) b. Disturb archaeological resources? (2, F56, p. 283) Affect historical resources? (2, p. 281 Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) RECREATION. Would the proposal: Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) Potentially Significant impact Less Than Significant Impact NO impact X X X X X X X X X X R:\STAFFRPTX43PA96,EA 8/3196 16. 17. Issues and SuppOrting Information Sources MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c. Does the project have impacts that area individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that 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 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? EARLIER ANALYSES. No impact 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. X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant NO Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The environmental documentation and studies used to prepare the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports used to approve the City General Plan. 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. This initial Environmental Study has been prepared to evaluate the impacts of the previously described General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map changes. The impacts of these changes have been compared to the various impacts associated with the original City General Plan that was adopted in 1993. Based upon this evaluation it has been determined that these General Plan and Zoning Map changes will have no new impacts on the environment that were not previously identified in the Final EIR for the General Plan. In addition, any and all appropriate mitigation measures identified in the mitigation monitoring program for the General Plan EIR will be applied to these properties when development occurs. c. Mitigation measures. For effects that are '"Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Any and all appropriate mitigation measures identified in the mitigation monitoring program for the General Plan EIR will be applied to these properties as specific development OCCURS. SOURCE LIST 1 - City of Temecula General Plan 2 - City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report R:\STAFFRI>T~43PA96.EA 813196 slb DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONNIENTAL 12VIPACTS (BEYOND THOSE IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN) Land Use and Planning 1 .all The project will not result in any conflicts with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The project proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Maps. The corrections to the zoning map are needed to make the parcels consistent with the revised General Plan designation. The amendments to the land use map recognize the existing land uses or correct inappropriate designations to private property. No impacts beyond those identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan (FEIR) are anticipated as a result of this project. Population and Housing 2.all The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections or induce additional growth. The project proposes to recognize the existing land use patterns and corrects mapping errors. The project will not be a significant contributor to population growth which will cumutatively exceed official regional or local population projections. No impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR are anticipated as a result of this project. Geologic Problems 3.all. The project will not have a significant impact on people involving fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, expansive soils, liquefaction, subsidence, landslides, mud flows, erosion, or affect unique geologic or physical features. No impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR are anticipated as a result of this project. Water 4.all. The project will not result in changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff, discharges into surface waters, alter the amount or quality of surface or ground waters quality. No impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR are anticipated as a result of this project. Air Quality 5.all The project will not violate any air quality standards or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, create objectional odors, or alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause any change in climate. No impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRIYI'~43PA96.EA 8/3/96 slb Transportation/Circulation 6.all The project will not result in an increase in vehicle trips, affect rail, waterborne or air traffic, result in hazards to safety from design features, affect emergency access or access to nearby uses, or create hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists since the project does not propose any construction. No impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR are anticipated as a result of this project. Biological Resources 7.all The project will not result in an impact to any endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats, result in impacts to locally designated natural communities, or affect wildlife dispersal or migration corridors beyond those impacts identified in the FEIR. No impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR are anticipated as a result of this project. Energy and Mineral Resources 8.all The project will not impact and/or conflict with adopted energy conservation plans, cause the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner, or .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 impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR are anticipated as a result of this project. Hazards 9.eli The project will not result in a risk of explosion, the release of any hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions, will not interfere with an emergency response or evaluation plans, create a health hazard, expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards, or increase to fire hazard in an area with fiammable brush, grass, or trees. No impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR are anticipated as a result of this project.. Noise 10.all The proposal will not result in increases to existing noise levels or the exposure of people to severe noise levels and vibrations. No impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR are anticipated as a result of this project. Public Services 11 .all The project will not cause an increases in the demands for any public service. In addition, the ability of the Community Services District to build a park on the Margarita Road is not effected by the proposed amendment to the General Plan and Land Use Maps. No impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR are anticipated as a R:\STAFFRIrI~43PA96.EA 8/3/96 slb result of this project. Utilities and Service Systems 12.all The project will not result in a need for any new public utilities or systems. No impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR are anticipated as a result of this project. Aesthetics 13.all The project will not affect any scenic vistas or highway, or cause additional light and glare beyond the levels addressed in the General Plan EIR. No impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR are anticipated as a result of this project Cultural 14.all Resources The project will not have a significant impact to paleontological resources, unique ethnic cultural values, or restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the project areas. No impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR are anticipated as a result of this project. Recreation 15.all. The project will not have an impact or increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate to the City of Temecula and therefore will not result in impacts or in an increase in demand for neighborhood. No impacts beyond those identified in the FEIR are anticipated as a result of this project. R:\STAFFRPT~43PA96,E.A 8/3/96 slb 18 ITEM #6 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: August 19, 1996 Design Guidelines MEMORANDUM Prepared by: Craig D. Ruiz, Assistant Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission: Adoot a Resolution Recommending that the City Council Approve and Require the Use of the Community Design Guidelines BACKGROUND: The Community Design Element of the City's General Plan provides goals and policies that address the City's visual form and character from both a city-wide and focused subarea basis. The Element also calls for the preparation of design guidelines to carry-out these goals by providing for detailed site, architecture and landscape design standards for both future development and modifications to existing development. On September 12, 1995, the City Council awarded a contract to Urban Design Studio to prepare Design Guidelines. The Council also appointed a five-member committee to work with the consultant and staff to formulate the Draft Guidelines. The committee consisted of Planning Commissioners Miller and Webster, along with three members of the development community, Vince DiDonato, Larry Markham and Russell Rumansoff. Once appointed, the committee, consultant and staff took a field trip to review existing development within the City. The trip provided a forum for the committee to discuss design elements within the City. The consultant used this information to form the basis of the Guidelines. Once the Draft Guidelines were complete, the committee met on two occasions to again review and provide comments on the document. These comments were then incorporated into the document that is now before the Commission. The Guidelines include sections on commercial, multi-family residential, industrial, village center and public design. Once adopted, the Guidelines are intended to guide the development community in formulating development proposals and by staff in the review of Planning Applications. The Guidelines will function as an extension of the requirements contained within the Development Code. Copies of the Draft Guidelines were provided to the Commission on August 1, 1996. R:\STAFFRPTXDESIGNGLPC 8/13/96 c4r ] Attachments: 1 Resolution No. 96- - Blue Page 3 2, Design Guidelines * Blue Page 6 R:\STAFFRPT\DESIGNGL,PC 8/13/96 cdr 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PC RESOLUTION NO. 96- R:XSTAFFRPT\DESIGNGL.PC 8113/96 cdr 3 ATTACHMENT NO. I RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION REQUIRING CITY STAFF TO USE COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the first General Plan for the City of Temecula on November 9, 1993 in accordance with Section 65300 of State Planning and Zoning Law; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan contains the Community Design Element which calls for the preparation and adoption of city-wide Design Guidelines: and WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Design Guidelines as required by the General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council appointed the Design Guideline Committee to assist in the formulation of the Design Guidelines; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Resolution was posted at City Hall, County Library, Rancho California Branch, the U.S. Post Office and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was conducted on August 19, 1996, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Environmental Compliance. The proposed project is exempt from the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 2. That Resolution No. 96- adopt the Community Design Guidelines. be adopted recommending that the City Council R:\STAFFRPTXDESIGNGL.PC 8/13/96 cdr 4 Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of August, 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 19th day of August, 1996 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: NOES: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary R:\STAFFRPT\DESIGNGL.pC 8113196 cds 5 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Design Guidelines (Submitted under separate Cover) R:\STAFFRPTXDE$1GNGL.PC 8113/96 cdr 6